I • • • • . MANAGEMENT PLAN·· • . . . • ~RAND TETON NATIONAL PARK • • • • • • • • • • Octol,er, 1997 • • • • 9lf.ASE REIURN TO: • JECHNICAL lllfORMATION CENTER ·®1.•· . O£N¥ER SERVICE CENTER. · • AATIOHAL PARK SERVICE • FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SNAKE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK

n accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Iregulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR 1508.9, the National· Park Service prepared a Snake River Management Plan/Environmental Assessment (April 1997). The· environmental assessment analyzed the impacts which would result from the proposed federal action of implementing the Snake River Management Plan. The Snake River Management Plan details specific actions to achieve the broad goals of providing for visitor use and resource protection as described in the Master Plan for Grand Teton National Park.

PROPOSED ACTION

Under the proposed action recreational use of the river corridor below the will be held at approximately current levels. Each individual scenic float operation will retain its current permitted daily launch quota, not to exceed a monthly cap. This monthly cap will be based on each concessionaire's highest month during the operating seasons of 1994, 1995 and 1996. The monthly overall cap for commercial scenic use will be 2,603 launches, which will include 39 reserve allotments. As with the monthly allotments, each company's reserve will be based on its highest monthly reserve use during the 1994, 1995 and 1996 seasons. Each company's reserve may be used to exceed its daily permitted launch quota; however, it will count towards the monthly cap since these number's were factored into the monthly use limit. In 1999, when.the new commercial prospectuses are issued, each permitee who has not utilized its permit two out of the last three years will find its use subject to reallocation.

Each commercial fishing operator will be assigned a monthly cap, based on the concessionaire's highest month over the last three operating seasons. This will provide a monthly overall total of 526 commercial fishing launches, a potential average of 17 launches/day. Those outfitters with little or no use over the last three seasons will be assigned a monthly cap based on the lowest of all current fishing outfitters. Each guide service will be limited to six launches per day. . If the standard of 20 launches per day is exceeded more than 5 days a month, a more restrictive daily cap will be explored. In order to spread use out from the crowded river sections, the following incentive will be provided to float the Moose/Wilson section. On this section, fishing guides Will be allowed to float 3 launches per day that will be applied to their daily cap, but not to their monthly cap. The goal, as in the upriver sections, will be to have not more than 20 launches per day on the Moose/Wilson section. If this is exceeded more than 5 days a month, than a more restrictive cap will be explored. In 1999, when the new commercial prospectuses are issued, those permitees who have not utilized their permits two out of the last three years, will find their permitted use subject to reallocation.

.Commercial rafts will be limited to crafts which are rated to carry 17 passengers or less, with the exception of the big boats which are rated to carry 24 passengers. ' . If noncommercial use exceeds standards outlined in chapter 5 of the plan, the number of private boaters allowed on the river per day wiJJ be limited through the implementation of a permit system. Ifuse levels do not significantly increase, no restrictions are· anticipated.

The NPS wiJJ conduct minor dredging at the launch sites. An individual 404 permit wiJJ be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work being conducted.

Minor changes to improve parking and circulation will be conducted at Jackson Lake Dam, Cattlemans Bridge, and Schwabackers landing. Restroom· facilities will be added to existing facilities at Pacific Creek Landing and Deadmans Bar. Bank stabilization wiJJ occur at Pacific Creek landing to protect the launch from further erosion.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Three reasonable alternatives to the proposed action were analyzed in the environmental assessment: No Action, Increased Use and Experience by Segment. The No Action alternative left commercial use at its current permitted levels. That would provide a potential increase of 48% on average 1996 levels for commercial floating and no upper limits for commercial fishing or private floating. In addition, no dredging hi excess of 25 cubic yards would be conducted at the launch sites and no improvements in parking or circulation would be made. The increased use alternative proposed an increase of 10% over existing scenic float permits, or a potential increase of 64 % over average 1996 levels. It also proposed capping guiding fishing at a level 10% above average 1996 levels. The Experience By Segment alternative proposed to zone the river by section and provide different levels of use per segment. Both the . Increased Use and Experience By Segment proposed to treat the launch areas the same as the preferred alternative.

The environmental assessment analyzed anticipated short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts which would result from implementation of the· proposed action and each alternative in conjunction with past activities, current conditions, and possible future actions.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

From the outset ofthe planning process, public input played a critical role in determining the problems and opportunities that would be addressed by the pian. Three public workshops have been held during November 1994, June 1994, and March 1995. In addition two- open houses were held for float and fishing trip permit holders in October 1995 and 1996 to hear some oftheir comments and suggestions about river regulations, . manipulation and commercial use. An additional meeting was held in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service in February 1997 to discuss possible options for managing commercial fishing.

A Draft Snake River ·Management Plan was released for public review for a 60 day period from August 13 through October 15, 1996. A second Snake River Management -,

Plan/EnvirorunentalAssessment was released fora 45 day public review in April 1997, ending on June 2, 1997. A total of28 comments were received, and those comments· · aree incorporated throughout the plan.

REGULATORYREVIEW

The National Park Serviceprovided the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) documentation in support of a finding of no effecton historic properties in the area of potential effects in accordance with 36 CFI Part 800 regulations forimplementation of Sec. 106 of the National Historic PreservationAct.

FINDING

Approval of alternative 1 in the environmental assessment is preferred for the following reasons:

1.e There would be no significant impact to natural resources or cultural resourcese as analyzed in the environmental assessment.e

2.e There would be no adverse impacts to floodplains or wetlands, as evaluatede under Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive ordere 11990, Protection of Wetlands.e

3.. There would be no significant impacts which would jeopardize the continuede existence of threatened or endangered plant or animal species, in accordancee with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act.e

4.e There would be no adverse impact, to sites or districts listed or eligible fore listing ii) the National Register of Historic Places under the procedures ofe Sec. I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act.e

6.e No highly uncertain or controversial effects, unique or uncertain risks,e significant cumulative impacts, or elements of precedence have beene identified.e

7.e There would be beneficial use of the environment without degradation, resultinge in benefit to public health and safety and advancement of the approvede management goals of the National Park Unit.e

After thorough review and consideration of the information contained in the environmental assessment and the. public comments, I find that the proposed action does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as ,, . ""

amended, and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CPR 1508,9), an environmental impact statement will not be prepared for this federal actfon. . ·

/o~/f7 Date · Superintendent • • • • ••• • SNAKE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN • • GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK • • • • • • • • • • • • • • October, 1997 • • • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Executive Summary • Part One: Introduction 1 Introduction 1 • Need for this Plan 4 Project Scope and Objectives 4 • Legislative and Planning History 5 • Planning by Other Agencies 7 • Part Two: Planning Issues 11 Public Participation 11 • Planning Issues 11 • Goals 15 • Part Three: Resource Overview & Existing Conditions 17 Natural Resources 17 • Cultural Resources 27 Recreation Use Patterns and Trends 31 • Visitor Survey Results 34 • Existing Access Areas 39 • Part Four: Management Plan 43 Desired Future Conditions 43 • The Plan 45 • Part Five: Indicators, Standards & Monitoring 53 • Carrying Capacity 53 Social Indicators and Standards 54 • Resource Indicators and Standards 54 Monitoring 55 • Research Needs 56 • • Planning Team 57 . • References 58 • •• • • l•• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • • ••• ••• • • • • • • • "(7&e SH

• his plan sets forth the management for Management which are discussed in Part • T philosophy for the Snake River Corridor One. Once finalized, it will guide National and provides strategies for addressing Park Service stewardship of the river corri­ • issues and objectives based on that philoso­ dor. The plan has been designed to achieve phy. This picturesque river originates in the the following objectives: • highlands of northwestern Wyoming's Teton • Wilderness Area, flows west through a • Identify the biological, cultural and portion of Yellowstone National Park, south scenic values that define the unique charac­ • through John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial ter of the Snake River Corridor. Parkway and then enters Grand Teton Na­ • tional Park as it flows into Jackson Lake . • Identify key issues to be resolved in • This plan addresses the 25 mile section of this plan. the river that flows east from the Jackson • Lake Dam, then south to the park's bound­ • Formulate a management framework ary. that responds to the issues and effectively • Cultural resources within the corridor are guides National Park Service management • briefly discussed, but will be more fully of the river corridor. addressed in the park's upcoming Cultural • Resources Management Plan . • Determine the appropriate carrying capacities for visitor use of the river corridor. • PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES • Present alternatives for visitor use of • the river corridor. The National Park Service determined that • an updated Snake River Management Plan was needed not only to resolve present • Develop a resource monitoring and • issues, but to ensure wise choices for future implementation schedule for the completed • management and use of the river corridor. plan . • This Snake River Management Plan builds upon the goals set forth in the Grand Teton • National Park Master Plan and Statement • • • ii Snake River Management Plan • light of dam openings and closures. • PLANNING ISSUES Access • From the outset of the planning • process, public input played a critical Current boat launch areas become role in determining the problems and crowded during the summer months, • opportunities that would be addresed with boaters waiting in line to launch by the plan. To date, three public or exit the river. At some access • workshops have been held, during points, gravel builds up and impedes • November 1994, June 1994, and launch use. The number and location March 1995. In addition, two open . of launch sites need to be reviewed • houses were held for float and fishing and alterations to the landings evalu­ trip permit holders in October 1995 ated: should there be slip clearance • and 1996 to hear some of their com­ or dredging, alternate locations as • ments .and suggestions about river the river character changes, or per­ regulations, manipulation and com­ manent vs. temporary landings desig­ • mercial use. An additional meeting nated? was held in conjunction with the U.S. • Forest Service in February 1997 to Parking at some launch areas comes • discuss possible options for manag- congested and is not well defined. At . ing commercial fishing. times, the vault toilets at Deadmans • Bar and Pacific Creek have long lines. A Draft Snake River Management What level of development is appro­ • Plan was released for public review priate at the launch areas that will not • for a 60 day period from August 13 further impact the riverine .environ­ through October 15, 1996. A second ment? • Snake River Managment Plan/Envi­ ronmental Assessment was released Commercial and Private River Use • for a 45 day public review in April • 1997, ending on June 2, 1997. A The perception exists that the river total of 28 comments were received, may become overcrowded in the • and those comments are incorpo­ future. This perception ties in with the rated throughout this plan. · often misunderstood concept of • carrying capacity. • Resource Protection and Enhance­ ment Carrying capacity means the amount • and type of recreational use an area Public opinion emphasized the desire can accommodate without altering • to maintain the river's natural charac­ either the environment or the user's ter in order to protect wildlife and experience beyond the degree of • scenic quality. Wildlife issues such as change deemed acceptable by the • eagle nest closures and temporary management objectives for the area. habitat closures for other species • need to be explored. Decline in If use of the Snake River continues to cottonwood seed regeneration in advance at the current rate, there will • riparian areas should be explored in be increased stress on aesthetic and • • • • • • Executive Summary iii • wildlife resources. This stress will be River and its riparian environment • caused by the growing number of from unacceptable change caused by largely unregulated non-commercial human activities. • and guided fishing boats and in­ creased use of commercial scenic • To protect and preserve the • launches . · historic resources in the river corridor and associated environments. • What is now needed is a reevaluation • of carrying capacities for the Snake • To provide Snake River users River, based on scientific recommen­ the opportunity to participate in and • dations. This reevaluation will then appreciate a variety of unique experi­ establish updated management ences offered by Grand Teton Na­ • objectives for the river, to determine tional Park as a whole and by the • acceptable upper limits of use. In riverine environment in particular. To addition to developing new carrying provide an opportunity for all partici- • capacities, methods for staying within . pants to enjoy a rewarding river these limits need to be generated running experience. • and explored . • • To provide a quality Snake THE GOALS OFTHE SNAKE RIVER River experience through Grand • MANAGEMENT PLAN Teton National Park: • The basic goals of Grand Teton • By determining the impact of National Park in the management of crowding and use levels on visitor •II the Snake River reflect those of the experience. NPS as expressed in the National Park Service Act of 1916 and the • By then establishing a human • Redwoods Act of 1978. The main use capacity and a limitation on use • objective is to "... conserve the scen­ that protects the river's natural re­ ery and natural and historic objects sources and processes. • and wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same [and] • To provide opportunities for • leave them unimpaired.... "These people of various ages and abilities • legislative mandates are the driving to participate in river trips. force behind management decisions • effecting NPS areas across the nation. The mandates which apply to • this project are: • • To preserve the natural re- • sources and environmental pro­ cesses of the Snake River corridor • and the associated riparian and river • environments. To protect the Snake • • • • I iv Snake River Management Plan I I Management Plan Several public comments were made re­ I The National Park Service developed this questing additional opportunities for com­ final Snake River Management Plan as a mercial guided fishing on Jackson Lake. • result of comments and input received on Grand Teton Lodge Company and Signal the Draft Snake River Management Plan Mountain Lodge currently hold permits to • released in August of 1996, and the Snake offer guided fishing on Jackson Lake. The River Management Plan/Environmental Lodge Company has the contractual right to • Assessment released in April 1997. This provide any additional fishing services on • Snake River Management Plan is scheduled the park's lakes, if the park were to autho­ to begin implementation during the summer rize them. • of 1999. In addition, several public comments were • Public comment throughout this planning made requesting additional commercial • process generally reflected a desire to see fishing use of the Moose to Wilson section, future use levels on the river remain consis­ which flows within park boundaries for the • tent with existing levels. first three miles. The Bureau of Land Man­ agement owns the Wilson launch and take­ • After release of the Draft Snake River Plan out site: This section is open to all commer­ • in August of 1996, many of the commercial cial fishing outfits currently permitted by the · outfitters asked that a simple average of use park. Grand Teton National Park administers • not be applied to determine launch num­ all commercial activity which takes place bers, since use varies widely depending on within the park, even if those activities • user demand, weather, and time of the extend beyond its boundaries. The park will • week, as well as time of the season. In continue to authorize permits for commercial II response to that request, the preferred use of the Snake River from Moose to the alternative presented in the Snake River park boundary. When the Bureau of Land Management Plan/Environmental Assess­ Management undertakes a management • ment in April 1997 proposed to cap use at plan for land it administers along the river • existing levels, with commercial float and downstream of the park, the National Park fishing use caps set in a way that provide Service will work with the BLM as appropri­ ate during their planning process. • some flexibility for fluctuating demand. Several comments received on the April • 1997 draft felt that the system proposed of Recreational Use • daily caps in addition to monthly caps was going to be difficult to manage. Several Commercial use of the riparian areas would • other comments from commercial operators continue, with the following provisions: requested that the current reserve allotment • system remain in effect. Other comments Scenic Floating • reflected the desire to see the no-action alternative implemented, no parking restric­ Each individual scenic float operation will • tions at launch areas and improvements to retain its current permitted daily launch the launch areas developed. Some com­ quota, not to exceed a monthly cap. This • mercial outfitters felt that they were regu­ monthly cap will be based on each concessionaire's highest month over the • lated enough and that private users should be regulated more stringently. 1994, 1995 and 1996 operating seasons. • • • • • • Executive Summary v • By utilizing each concessionaire's historic weather, water, clients numbers, etc. This • high month, current use of reserve allot­ limit on the commercial outfitters will reduce ments will be factored into the monthly use current permitted levels by approximately • limit. 23%, but current use levels will easily be accommodated. This is a 10% increase • However, in order to give the over July 1996 levels. In other words, • concessionaire's additional flexibility to existing use will not be reduced, but the address unusual high use days, the reserve potential for significant growth has been • allotment system will remain, based on the eliminated. following system. Historic use of reserve • allotments over the last three operating For example: If a concessionaire has a • seasons will be factored into individual monthly not to exceed (NTE) of 500 permits. As with the monthly allotments, launches, with a daily NTE of 20, he may • each company's reserve will be based on its launch an average of about 16 boats a day. highest monthly reserve use. Each Actual weather and customer patterns • company's reserve may be used to exceed suggest that use will vary, and he may • its daily permitted launch quota; however, it launch up to 20 boats a day as long as at will count towards the month cap since the end of the month he has not exceeded • these number's were factored into the 500 launches . • monthly use limit. • Individual permits will be assigned through the concessions program; individual launch • numbers will be allocated through the con­ cessions operating plan for each individual • outfitter. The intent is to give each conces­ sionaire some flexibility to take into account • weather and client patterns. Each current • permittee with no use will retain its daily allotment, and its monthly cap will be based • on the lowest of all float trip operators. In 1999, when the new commercial prospec­ • tuses are issued, each permitee who has • not utilized its permit two out of the last three years will find its use subject to reallo­ • cation . • The monthly overall cap for commercial The above graph shows the historical aver­ scenic use will be 2,603 launches, which will • age use in relation to both the old limits and include 39 reserve allotments. This provides the new proposal. Previously, limits were • a potential average of 84 launches per day, only in effect from June 1O through Sept. 15 . but in reality, all days are not amenable to This plan proposes that limits be in effect • the same degree of river use. Therefore, year round. • total daily scenic launches permitted would remain at 103 per day, more than the aver­ • age, to allow flexibility for fluctuations in • • • I vi Snake River Management Plan I I In order to spread use out from the crowded Guided Fishing river sections, the following incentive will be I provided to float the Moose/Wilson section. In commercial guided fishing, as in scenic On this section, fishing guides will be al­ · floating, the intent is to easily accommo­ lowed to float 3 launches per day that will be •I date current levels of use, but eliminate applied to their daily cap, but not to their the potential for signiricant growth. monthly cap. The goal, as in the upriver Guided fishing launches over the last three sections, will be to have no more than 20 • seasons have averaged 13/ day, never launches per day on the Moose/Wilson • exceeding 19 launches/day. The goal is to section. If this is exceeded more than 5 days have no more than 20 guided fishing a month, than a more restrictive cap will be • launches on any given day between Jack­ explored. son Lake Dam and Moose. • Current rules applicable to guided fishing I Each fishing outfitter will be assigned a and float trips concerning designated monthly cap, based on its highest month launching, landing and lunch stop sites will • over the 1994, 1995 and 1996 operating continue. Stopping commercial scenic boats seasons. Those fishing outfitters with little other than at designated locations along the • use over the last three seasons will be river will be prohibited. Other administrative • assigned a monthly cap based on the lowest or operational requirements to remain in of all current fishing outfitters. This will effect include monthly reporting of opera­ • provide a monthly overall total of 526 com­ tions, boatman qualifications, equipment mercial fishing launches, a potential average standards, provision of an interpretive pro­ • of 17 launches/day. As in scenic float opera­ gram to the public, safety requirements and tions, all days are not amenable to the same Park Service approval of prices. These will • degree of fishing use, and we anticipate that continue to be addressed and modified, if • actual use will fluctuate. In 1999, when the necessary, through annual concession new commercial prospectuses are issued, operating plans. • those permitees who have not utilized their permits two out of the last three years, wjll Existing picnic sites will continue to be • find their permitted use subject to realloca­ available to both private users and desig­ • tion. nated commercial users, if conditions permit and no new resource implications arise. No • Each guide service will be limited to six special maintenance will be conducted, launches per day. As in the current conces­ such as grading roads to keep these sites • sions operating plan, guided fishing opera­ open to vehicles. • tions will phone in their use numbers and locations to park dispatch each morning. Commercial boats will continue to wait to • Dispatch will provide the locations of other launch until others are out of sight; this guides, so that fishing operations can regulation has been in effect for some time. • spread themselves out voluntarily through If excessive crowding becomes an issue, on • the other sections. If the standard of 20 the ramps or on the river, designated launch launches per day is exceeded more than 5 times may be instituted. • days a month, a more restrictive daily cap will also be placed on each outfit. Commercial rafts will be limited to craft's • which are rated to carry 17 passengers or • • • • • • Executive Summary vii • less, with the exception of Jackson Lake Discussions of the launch areas are concep­ Lodge's big boats, which are rated to carry tual in this plan. Site specific design work • will be completed prior to construction. • up to 24 passengers .. In 1999 when the commercial prospectuses Jackson Lake Dam • are issued, the number of rafts per group may be further limited and certain shuttle The NPS will adopt the conceptual design • frequencies may be required . developed during the 1980s, when the • Jackson Lake Dam was reconstructed. At The following passenger meeting points will that time, the area now used for parking and • be designated: Moose, Pacific Creek, and boat launching was the construction staging concession operated sites. However, com- area. A schematic site plan was developed • . mercial operators will be encouraged to to rehabilitate much of the disturbed area • meet clients at their own facilities. If crowd- while providing access to the river. The . ing at parking areas becomes a problem in plan's intent is still valid. Pedestrian access • the future, commercial operators may be to the river will be provided for a variety of required to meet clients off site. uses including fishing, walking, picnicking or • just sitting and enjoying the environment. • The launch site at Triangle X will continue to Parking for vehicles will be provided just be utilized by the ranch. north of the river, in an area which has trees • for shade and provides some separation Private Floating from the river bank. A walkway will be built • to provide easy access from the parking lot • Non-commercial use will continue with the to the river. In addition, access, but no following provisions: developed slip, will be provided for the • loading and unloading of small boats. Lim­ A monitoring system was developed and ited handicapped parking will be provided • began the summer of 1997 to obtain accu­ as well . • rate counts of private users. If non-commer­ cial use exceeds standards outlined in Cattlemans Bridge • chapter 5, the number of private boaters allowed on the river per day will be limited A survey and evaluation will be initiated to • through the implementation of a permit determine the historic significance of the • system. If use levels do not significantly bridge prior to any action taken in this area. increase, no restrictions are anticipated. Depending on the outcome of that survey, • the following is proposed: Launch Areas • Launch/Parking: This plan proposes to • The NPS will conduct minor dredging at maintain the primitive environment at launch sites. Gravel removal will be con­ Cattlemans Bridge but develop an acces­ • ducted to provide reasonable access to the sible launch site for those wishing to explore visitor when necessary. Dredging will be the Oxbow area. Development at the site will • conducted only in the immediate vicinity of be kept to a minimum. The topography the launch areas, and only when deemed provides easy access to the river with mini­ • necessary by park managers. mal environmental effect; this site is appro­ • priate for all types of users because they • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . .. • • • • • • • • • • • • PART ONE, INTRODUCTION •• .. ·· ..... ""-, ___ ;;--:-· -..... "'-.,...... ,./" ..... _....-·--.. • • • I I • • • •

• "'U'ate,, ta~-~Md~t<> ~. 7&e «-detu • ~ ~-~ a,:d ~- a,:d tk~ ~ ~­ • ~-~-~ a,:d ~ fuVz4 tam a,:d ~- dtzaa, a,:d ~ fuVz4 ~. " - ,Z,a.w 'U'ate,u "' ;z,e,ut, ~ ,Z,a.w 4 a,:d • ~ rt~

140000 • 140000

120000 120000 •I Plivate Floaters c:::::J ,uva oaters ~ 100000 . .• -Guided Fishing I ~ ·3 80000 80000 cm:m Commercial Flcaters

j -carying Capacity I - 60000 60000 defined in 1978 plan I 40000 40000 I 20000 20000

0 0 I i i ~ i t i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ &i ~ m ~ v,~ I I I • • Introduction 3 • • • YELLOWSTONE • - -'------:..=---:;- -r'----\'}NATIONAL PARK

• ' \ ..... JOHND \ . ROCKEFELLER JR fi • \. ,...-...... /. • MEMORIAL • • ,.. • • • GRAND • TETON • NATIONAL • • • • • • • • • • • • • Location Map • • ON MICROFILM • 4 Snake River Management Plan • • stream banks are evident in all access Management Plan for Grand Teton National areas. • Park will tier off of the Snake River Corridor Project. More serious is the apparent deteriorati~n of • intangible resources-those factors that A Draft Snake River Managment Plan was • make floating and other visitor activities in a completed and released for a 60 day public natural area enjoyable and unique. Crowd­ • review period in August, 1996. An additional ing, queuing, dust and noise are common Snake River Managment Plan/Environmen­ daytime features at many of the access • tal Assessment was released for a 45 day areas. During most summer days, floaters public review beginning in April 1997. This • see numerous other boats between plan takes into account those comments Deadmans Bar and Moose. When the river • received during both review periods. clears and fishing conditions are good, a scenic floater on the river passes many • anchored fishermen, which detracts from PROJECT SCOPE AND • the wilderness experience. Conversely, OBJECTIVES fishermen on the river are affected by a • steady stream of scenic floaters. Consider­ The National Park Service determined that ation of these factors suggests that present an updated Snake River Management Plan • levels of river use are near (or may exceed) was needed not only to resolve present • the optimum capacity and suggest that issues, but to ensure wise choices for future additional detractions or significant increase management and use of the river corridor. • in use should be avoided. This Snake River Management Plan builds • THE NEED FOR THIS PLAN upon the goals set forth in the Grand Teton National Park Master Plan and Statement • for Management which are discussed later The most recent Snake River Management • in this chapter. Once finalized, it will guide Plan was completed in 1975 and updated in National Park Service stewardship of the • 1981. Since that time river use has steadily river corridor. The plan has been designed to increased, placing demands and pressure achieve the following objectives: • on resources and existing facilities. In June 1994, the Snake River Corridor Project was • Identify the biological, cultural and scenic organized as a multi-agency planning coop­ • erative. The intent of the values that define • the unique charac­ Snake River Corridor ter of the Snake • Project was to initiate River Corridor. dialogue between the • different management • Identify key • agencies in order to issues to be re­ coordinate management solved in this plan. • of the Snake River Corri­ dor from Jackson Lake • Dam to Palisades Reser­ • voir. The Snake River • • •I • • Introduction 5 • and providing for a quality visitor experience. • • Formulate a management framework Below is a summary of each of these docu­ • that responds to the issues and effec­ ments. tively guides National Park Service • management of the river corridor. Master Plan • • Determine the appropriate carrying Grand Teton National Park's Master Plan, • capacities for visitor use of the river approved in 1976, provides general direction corridor. for management of the park. This master • plan introduces a number of management • Present alternatives for visitor use of the objectives, which directly influence the • river corridor. Snake River Management Plan. These • objectives are: • Develop a resource monitoring and • implementation schedule for the com­ • To manage access points to the Snake pleted plan. River for scenic and fishing float trips, so • as to perpetuate a natural and wilder­ • LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING ness-type environment through which HISTORY float-trip groups can travel. This will be • done by undertaking studies to deter­ Park Purpose mine the capacity of visitor use on and • along the Snake River. • Grand Teton National Park was established to protect the area's spectacular scenic • To manage the Snake River cutthroat • values, as characterized by the geologic trout so as to ensure the perpetuation of features of the Teton Range and Jackson a native wild population as part of a • Hole, and the native plant and animal life . natural ecosystem within its range in • The original Grand Teton National Park Grand Teton National Park. (about 96,000 acres) was established by • Congress on February 29, 1929 (45 Stat. • To manage the biotic resources of the 1314). The park was enlarged to its present park for the purpose of perpetuating the • size by Congress on September 14, 1950 indigenous plant and animal associates (Public Law 81-797, 64 Stat. 849), to include of the Teton Range and , in • as natural a condition of dynamic equilib­ a portion of the lands within Jackson Hole • National Monument. The national monu­ rium as is feasible. ment had been established by Presidential • Proclamation (No. 2578, 57 Stat. 731) on • To interpret the historical resources March 15, 1943 . within the park, not only by giving atten­ • tion to the human historic niche in this • Planning Background environment, but by interpreting the historical events that took place at • There are currently three plans that address Cunningham Cabin, Manor's Ferry, and protection and visitor use of the Snake River Maude Noble Cabin, in context with the • nation's history in general. Corridor. These plans all share one theme: • protecting the natural and cultural resources • • 6 Snake River Management Plan • cated the need to establish recreational Statement for Management carrying capacities for national parks, and • ~s s~ecific example of a use needing A more recent planning document contain­ ~ lim1tat1ons, the Secretary cited float trips on • ing management objectives that directly the Snake River in Grand Teton National relate to management of the Snake River • Park. In addition, the National Park Service Corridor is the Statement for Management is required by law to address carrying ca­ which was approved in October, 1989. The • pacity in planning for parks: the 1978 Na­ following management objectives contained tional Parks and Recreation Act (P.L. 95- • in that document relate to this planning 625) requires each park's general manage­ effort: • ment plan to include identification of and implementation commitments for visitor • Manage the Snake River as a natural • carrying capacities for all areas ofthe unit. environment by limiting development and Part five of this plan contains a complete • use levels. description of the carrying capacity concept • and process for meeting this objective. • Maintain all waters in Class I condition. • On August 28, 1974, the Director of the • Manage all park natural resources under Na!ional Park Service issued a river running • ecosystem concepts that are aimed at policy statement which directed all parks perpetuating natural systems rather than • having river boating activities to develop individual species or features. management plans by April 30, 1976. The • policy required that carrying capacity be • Establish ecologically-sound limits and determined for each river, that an interim • manage all activities and uses to ensure capacity could be established if additional compatibility with the preservation of • data were needed, and that use could be park resources and a positive visitor rationed if it exceeded the determined experience. • capacity. • • Preserve, manage, and display sites, As directed by this policy, Grand Teton buildings, and objects that are significant • National Park developed the Snake River and represent the broad sweep of west­ Management Plan (Grand Teton National ern history and prehistory. • Park 1975), which went into effect in April 1975 and was incorporated into the Natural • • Provide future generations the opportu­ Resource Management Plan. nity to enjoy, comprehend, and appreci­ • ate these tangible resources and their The Snake River Management Plan of 1975 historical significance. • was reviewed and updated by park manage­ ment in the fall of 1981. • Existing Snake River Management Plan • By the mid-1960's there was concern that increasing commercial float trip traffic on the • Snake River was having detrimental effects • on the Snake River corridor within the park. In 1969 the Secretary of the Interior indi- • • • • • Introduction 7 • PLANNING BY OTHER AGENCIES • To date, the project has held several • WHICH AFFECTS THE SNAKE public workshops to identify concerns RIVER about the river corridor and develop • goals for the project, and to increase • Snake River Corridor Project communication and cooperation between agencies and organizations. • The Snake River Corridor Project is a coop­ • erative planning effort currently being under­ Bridger-Teton National Forest taken by fifteen agencies and organizations. • The Snake River Corridor project was initi­ The Bridger-Teton National Forest com­ ated with the hope of conserving the pleted its Snake River Final Area Analysis in • corridor's natural resources while balancing August 1996, which addresses the 25.5-mile demand for recreational use and community section located above the Palisades Reser­ • voir, beginning at the South Park Bridge. needs for housing, transportation and utili­ • ties. The project provides a framework for This plan is designed to meet the following coordinating numerous agency manage­ objectives: • ment efforts affecting the Snake River. The focus of the project is the 69-m ile reach of • Provide a variety of high quality • recreational river experiences, reduce the Snake River from Jackson Lake Dam to • Palisades Reservoir. ramp congestion, and maintain scenic quality. • The mission of the Snake River Corridor Project is "to promote coordinated, broadly­ • Reduce visitor conflicts and improve • safety. supported management of the Snake River • Corridor that protects and enhances natural resources and appropriate recreational • Reduce problems associated with • opportunities." camping. • • Provide long-term protection for wildlife The project goals are: • and plants . • To preserve and enhance the natural • character of the Snake River Corridor. • Improve the self-sufficiency of the field program to provide on-the-ground visitor • • To provide improved recreational oppor­ services. • tunities within the corridor, consistent with minimum impact upon river re­ Bureau of Reclamation • sources, adjacent private lands, and quality of experience. The Jackson Lake Dam lnstream Flow • Study Preliminary Recreation Impact As­ • • To create a system of cooperative plan­ sessment was undertaken by the Bureau of ning and river management between Reclamation to determine how flow regimes • local, state, federal agencies, and com­ from the Jackson Lake Dam might impact munity organizations. recreational activities of the upper Snake • River Corridor. • • • • I 8 Snake River Management Plan I I Initial results of this study indicate that boat of river navigable. This would increase launch sites are reaching facility carrying carrying capacity, allowing floaters to see I capacity. The study states that conflicts fewer fishermen and possibly more wildlife. have occurred at these sites, primarily The study also suggests designating time I between commerdal users and private blocks mainly for private rafters and for I boaters. According to the study, water level limited commercial rafting. These blocks for changes on the Snake can and do impact private rafters should be during off-peak carrying capacity by increasing and de­ times. • creasing demand for numbers of river trips. • More research is needed on effects of water The study also proposes periodic spring on number of river trips to offer an optimum flushing of side channels and isolated points • low recommendation. along the river, which is considered to be of great benefit to the natural system as well • Two social carrying capacity conflicts are as the recreational users. These high flows • identified in this study that apply to the clear debris from the channels, making them park's section of the river: navigable, thereby increasing the variety of • opportunities for fishing and wildlife viewing 1. Scenic float guides and customers on the for scenic floaters. They also reduce con­ • river perceive increasing numbers of fisher­ flicting encounters between rafters and men as impacting their pristine experience • fishermen. This high water revitalizes the and ability to view wildlife. Fishermen are riparian systems providing nutrients and • observed more often than floaters on the cleaning silt deposits from gravel beds. river because they stop or slow down to fish Additional mid-size gravel is moved by these • and are passed by other boaters. Floaters flows into the mouths of side tributaries primarily impact each other at the river put­ • refreshing valuable cutthroat spawning ins; since they move down river at the same habitat. • speed as the current, they seldom see each other otherwise. Wyoming Game & Fish • 2. Another conflict exists between commer­ • The Wyoming Game & Fish Department has cial outfitters and private rafters ..Private been a cooperating agency in managing the • rafters see outfitters as controlling and fisheries of the Snake River. This agency dominating river opportunities, while com­ developed a management plan for the • mercial rafters see private rafters as a threat Snake River Basin in November, 1995. It due to their growing numbers. contained the following management objec­ • tive: • This study goes on to suggest that these conflicts can be solved through manage­ The principle management objective in the • ment schemes. Problem one can be solved Snake River drainage is to preserve the wild through zoning of the water: the conflict trout fishery and the integrity of the indig­ • between floaters and anglers can be re­ enous Snake River cutthroat trout. Main­ • duced by providing early season (mid-June) taining the supply and increasing the diver­ high runoff flows combined with sustained sity of sport fishing opportunities in the • releases of approximately two weeks. This drainage is also a primary management type of flow rate would flush the river, mak­ objective. • ing multiple channels of the braided sections • • • • • Introduction 9 • In October of 1990, a contract was signed between the State of Wyoming and the • Bureau of Reclamation (SOR) for 33,000 acre-feet of water. The water is used to • seasonally enhance instream flows below • Jackson Lake Dam . • Future Management Activities • Wyoming Game and Fish has proposed the • following actions for the Snake River: • • Maintain current management activities and continue as the lead agency in the • management of Wyoming's fisheries • resources . • • Continue to monitor biological and • social response to special regulations . • • Pursue a habitat restoration project for the Upper Bar BC spring creek within • Grand Teton National Park . • • Initiate a Snake River cutthroat trout • telemetry study with the National Biologi­ cal Service to determine seasonal move­ • ments. • • Rejuvenate spawning gravels on spring • creeks as necessary. • • Update drainage surveys as pressure • warrants . • • Inventory streams and lakes where information on non-game species is • limited or lacking . • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • •• • • • • • • • ••• • • • ••• • • • PART TWO, PLANNING ISSUES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PART TWO, PLANNING ISSUES he issues presented in this section establish the framework for the entire Snake • T River planning effort. They are the culmination of information gathered from public workshops, written comments, consultation with other public agencies, and in­ • house meetings with NPS staff. • • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION From the outset of the planning A toal of 28 comments were received, • process, public input played a critical and those comments are incorpo­ • role in determining the problems and rated throughout this plan . opportunities that would be ad­ • dressed by the plan. To date, three PLANNING ISSUES public workshops have been held, • during November 1994, June 1994, Listed below and continuing on the • and March 1995. In addition, two following pages are the planning open houses were held for float and issues that were identified as critical • fishing trip permit holders in October to the creation of a river management 1995 and 1996 to hear some of their plan that is environmentally-sensitive • comments and suggestions about and responsive to the needs of park • river regulations, manipulation and visitors. commercial use. An additional meet­ • ing was held in conjunction with the All of the planning issues share one U.S. Forest Service in February 1997 topic: the level of different types of • to discuss possible options for man­ recreation use on the river. How • aging commercial fishing. much recreation use can and should the river support? Visitors to the • A Draft Snake River Management Snake River were estimated to be Plan was released for public review over 104,700 in 1996, while the • for a 60 day period from August 13 previous Snake River Management through October 15, 1996. A second Plan defined the river's carrying • capacity at 80,000. The general goal Snake River Management Plan/ • Environmental Assessment was of this plan is to provide a range of released for a 45 day public review in rewarding recreational opportunities • April 1997, ending on June 2, 1997 . • • • • 12 Snake River Management Plan • while protecting the natural and nearly eliminated. How the river's • cultural resources of the river corri­ braiding pattern, sandbars, flood­ plain, riparian areas, and banks are • dor. affected by these changes should be • Resource Protection and Enhance­ investigated. ment Vegetation ". Public opinion obtained during the • scoping process emphasized the The observed decline in cottonwood • desire to maintain the river's natural seed regeneration in riparian areas character in order to protect wildlife should be explored in light of dam • and scenic quality. These values openings and closures. In order to must be of primary importance in the germinate, cottonwood seeds must • formation of this management plan. be carried by water over gravely • areas for scarification and then de­ , Fisheries posited in soil where there is little • competition. Cottonwood, a shade­ The primary limiting factors affecting intolerant species, is being out­ • fisheries in the Snake River are competed by Colorado blue spruce, a • winter flows, loss of instream habitat, species not native to western Wyo­ and loss of spawning areas. Re­ ming (B. Smith, pers. comm.). The • duced winter flow below Jackson effects of artificial river flows on Lake Dam limits the amount of win­ cottonwood seed regeneration need • tering habitat. Dikes encourage to be thoroughly investigated. • aggradation and loss of instream structure and prevent cottonwood Heavily used areas such as • regeneration within the riparian areas. launches, concessions picnic sites, Spawning habitat is degraded where fishing spots, and parking areas • livestock and wildlife winter along along the river present special issues. • spring creeks. Also, flooding and The extent of site degradations, such gravel rejuvenation in tributary spring as soil erosion, soil compaction, and • creeks has been greatly reduced by vegetation trampling at these dis­ dike construction, resulting in a con­ turbed areas, needs to be addressed • tinuing loss of spawning areas. and quantified. • Hydrology Wildlife • It should be determined how fluctuat­ Areas within 1/2 mile from known • ing water levels caused by dam eagle nests are closed to public • operations affect other wildlife, par­ access from February 1 to August 15. ticularly waterfowl and other shore­ Eagles complete nesting and fledging • nesting birds and amphibians. of young during this time period. It needs to be determined whether the • Changes in river structure caused by 1/2 mile distance is adequate to • the dam's artificial flows should also protect the nesting territories of this be explored. Floods are now infre­ species. • quent and high flows have been • • .~------• Planning Issues 13 • Temporary habitat closures • for other species should also be explored. Areas • within 250 yards of the nesting sites of osprey, • trumpeter swan, and great • blue heron are presently closed from February 1 to • August 20, when posted. It has been determined that • osprey and herons com­ • plete nesting and fledging of young during this time • period, but trumpeter swan cygnets do not fledge until • mid-September. Perhaps swans should not be in­ • cluded with the other • species, but should have their own extended closure. • Drawi(1:g by Denise Casey Trumpeter swans do not presently Wintering wildlife is presently pro­ • tected by the December 15 to April 1 nest in the river bottom areas, but historically they nested in the Oxbow river bottom closure, which extends • from the dam south to Menor's Ferry. Bend. It is likely that swans aban­ • doned this nesting territory because This also protects the nesting activi­ of human disturbance. Lockman ties of raptors and other birds not • included by the aforementioned (1988) reported that shoreline fishing, • visitor activity, and boating on the closures. Oxbow markedly decreased the • capability of this area to support Visitor Use breeding swans. A closure might • The impact that river users have on make the area more attractive in the • future to a swan pair seeking a wildlife should also be explored. breeding territory. Impacts to wildlife including elk, deer, • bear, or bison have never been ad­ In addition, two great blue heron equately quantified. • rookeries in the Oxbow Bend have • not been used in a number of years . Several commercial companies have The Northeast Island rookery last used meal sites along the river for • produced young in 1984, and the their guests. The Lodge Company West Island rookery has not been also uses a picnic site in the Oxbow • productive since 1990 (Reid 1994). area to heist meals for up to 500 More research is needed to deter­ people at a time (Oxbow files, • S&RM). The effects of these activi­ mine the effects of human activities • on heron nests . ties on wildlife and vegetation have • • • 14 Snake River Management Plan • ated: should there be slip clearance • not been quantified. A decision or dredging, alternate locations as should be made about whether these • the river character changes, or per­ types of activities are appropriate in manent vs. temporary landings desig­ • the river bottom, especially in sensi­ . nated? tive riparian areas such as the Ox­ • bow. Parking at some launch areas be- • A related issue concerns bear attractants which are fre­ • quently made accessible to • bears and other wildlife along the river by park visitors and • .concession companies (Baptiste and Cain 1993, • 1995). For example, undesir­ • able fish caught below the dam are often left on the shore • to decompose in a location heavily used by visitors and • frequented by bears. Also, • panhandling bears have ob­ tained garbage scraps in • recent years at the Grand Teton comes congested and is not well Lodge Company's Deadmans Bar • defined. At times, the vault toilets at picnic site, which is located in prime Deadmans Bar and Pacific Creek • bear habitat. have long lines. What level of devel­ opment is appropriate at the launch • With grizzly bears now known to be areas that will not further impact the moving through the riparian areas, • riverine environment? the issue of unsecured bear attracta­ • nts presents a critical safety concern Commercial and Private River Use for park visitors: in 1994, a grizzly • bear with three cubs moved through The perception exists that the river the vicinity of the Triangle X riverside • may become overcrowded in the picnic site (Baptiste and Cain 1994). future. This perception ties in with the • often misunderstood concept of Access carrying capacity. • Current boat launch areas become • Carrying capacity means the amount crowded during the summer months, and type of recreational use an area • with boaters waiting in line to launch can accommodate without altering or exit the river. At some access either the environment or the user's • points, gravel builds up and impedes experience beyond the degree of launch use. The number and location • change deemed acceptable by the of launch sites need to be reviewed management objectives for the area. • and alterations to the landings evalu- •I I • • Planning Issues 15 • of 1978. The main objective is to • If use of the Snake River continues to "... conserve the scenery and natural • advance at the current rate, there will and historic objects and wildlife be increased stress on aesthetic and therein and to provide for the enjoy­ • wildlife resources. This stress will be ment of the same [and] leave them caused by the growing number of unimpaired.... "These legislative • largely unregulated non-commercial mandates are the driving force be­ and guided fishing boats and in­ hind management decisions affecting • NPS areas across the nation. The creased use of commercial scenic • launches . mandates which apply to this project are: • What is now needed is a reevaluation of carrying capacities for the Snake 1) To preserve the natural resources • and environmental processes of the River, based on scientific recommen­ • dations. This reevaluation will then Snake River corridor and the associ­ establish updated management ated riparian and river environments. • objectives for the river, to determine To protect the Snake River and its acceptable upper limits of use. In riparian environment from unaccept­ • able change caused by human activi­ addition to developing new carrying • capacities, methods for staying within ties . these limits need to be generated • and explored . • • THE GOALS OFTHE SNAKE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN

• The basic goals of • Grand Teton National Park in the manage­ • ment of the Snake River reflect those of • the NPS as expressed • in the National Park Service Act of 1916 • and the Redwoods Act • • • • • ... , ... ~ - =.!~ • • • 16 Snake River Management Plan • 2) To protect and preserve the his­ toric resources in the river corridor • and associated environments. • 3) To provide Snake River users the • opportunity to participate in and appreciate a variety of unique experi­ • ences offered by Grand Teton Na­ • tional Park as a whole and by the riverine environment in particular. To • provide an opportunity for all partici­ pants to enjoy a rewarding river­ • running experience. • 4) To provide a quality Snake River • experience through Grand Teton National Park: • a) By determining the impact of crowding and use levels on visitor • experience. • b) By then establishing a • human use capacity and a limitation on use that protects the river's natural • resources and processes. • 5) To provide opportunities for people • of various ages and abilities to par- . ticipate in river trips. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••,·------• • • • • • ' • I' • ••• • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • PART THREE, RESOURCE OVERVIEW • • • • • •I • • • • • • • • • • PART THREE, RESOURCE OVERVIEW

• his section presents a description of the 1978). Along the base of the Teton Range, • T environment and factors affecting the a series of large piedmont lakes mirror the Snake River corridor in Grand Teton Na­ peaks. Of these glacier-formed lakes, Jack­ • tional Park. A variety of documented litera­ son Lake is the largest. Relatively small ture contributed to the construction of this streams drain from the steep-walled can­ • overview. A portion of information was yons along the east front of the range while • adapted from the existing Grand Teton larger tributaries from the north and east National Park Snake River Management drain out of the highlands. All of these • Plan documented in 1975. Other reference streams flow into the Snake River. · materials are cited in the bibliography. • The Snake River and surrounding lowlands • NATURAL RESOURCES were formed during three different glacial periods: the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Ter­ • Topography & Geology tiary, whose features are geogically young. Sand, gravel and boulders are remnants of • A prominent visual feature of Grand Teton alluvial and glacial deposits from these three • National Park is the abrupt rise of the Teton periods (Kiefling 1978). Glacial and recent Range from the Jackson Hole valley floor. • These mountains formed through normal faulting processes, which began approxi­ • mately nine million years ago. Within the • park, the Tetons rise to 7,000 feet above a valley which spans about forty-eight miles • along a general north-south axis, extends three to twelve miles wide, and lies between • 6,000 and 7,000 feet above sea level. • ' The geology of the Jackson Hole area is -;h\? • one of the most documented in North '.I fl.J', America. Sedimentation and extensive • erosion has occurred due to various stages • of volcanism, glaciation, and uplift (Kiefling • • • • 18 Snake River Management Plan • alluvial terraces parallel the present flood • plain throughout sections of river within the water for irrigation in 's Snake River Valley. The reservoir was first built in 1906 • park. South of Jackson Lake, the Snake River has cut into outwash of the most by installing a log crib dam at the outlet of • recent glacial advance and the substrate the natural lake to create a usable capacity consists almost entirely of quartzite cobbles of 300,000 acre-feet. This dam washed out • embedded in a sandy-silt matrix. The river in 191 O and was replaced by an earth dam, is relatively active on its floodplain and is increasing usable capacity to 380,000 acre­ • braided throughout nearly half its length in ft. Usable capacity was subsequently in­ creased to 790,000 acre-feet in 1916 when • the park. Recent Teton fault activity has caused a westward shift in the course of the the earth dam was raised, and then to • river through Jackson Hole. 847,000 acre-feet in 1917 by dredging the outlet. The Bureau of Reclamation rebuilt • Soil the dam between 1987-89, maintaining the same capacity (USGS 1994). • Soil samples of the Snake River floodplain • and terraces within Grand Teton National The Snake River flows east out of Jackson · Park consist primarily of sandy to coarse Lake and then south for about 25 miles • loams. These soil sections were formed in before crossing the south boundary of the alluvium and glacial deposits and are char­ park. The Bureau of Reclamation dam at • acterized by being very deep. Soil found on the outlet of Jackson Lake regulates the flow • the low percentage slopes of the floodplain for four miles downstream where two major is generally poorly drained, whereas soil tributaries, Pacific Creek and Buffalo Fork • found on the steeper slopes extending from River, discharge into the Snake River. Addi­ the floodplain to the foothills is well drained tional smaller tributaries flow into the river in • (USDA 1982). this stretch of water. As it exits the park, the • river flows south and west through the valley Hydrology of Jackson Hole for about 47 miles. It then • turns south and east, following a fault struc­ The Snake River is a complex water system ture, and enters the steep-walled Snake • both in and outside Grand Teton National River canyon through which it flows south • Park. Draining approximately 3,465 square and then west into Idaho where it enters miles in Wyoming, this major tributary of the Palisades Reservoir. • originates on the western slope of the continental divide in northwest Water Quality • Wyoming's Teton Wilderness Area. Flowing • westward, the river passes through a portion The chemical quality of the water in the of Yellowstone National Park, south through upper Snake River is good, being slightly • John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway alkaline (ph 7.6-8.4) with relatively small and enters Jackson Lake within Grand Teton amounts of dissolved materials. (Dissolved • National Park boundaries. At this point the solids vary throughout the year from 86 to • drainage area covers 486 square miles 251 mg/liter.) Both alkalinity and dissolved (USGS survey 1994). material increase somewhat downstream. • Jackson Lake presently encompasses an • area of 25,730 acres and is used to store • • • • • • Resource Overview 19 • • Water Flows Jackson Lake Dam Average Outflows • Section 9 of PL 87-187 1991-1995 (64 Stat. 849) and a cubic feet per second • Memorandum of Under­ 8,QQ(r;f------~ • standing dated Novem­ ber 29, 1956, between • the National Park Ser­ vice and the Bureau of 4,00 • Reclamation, provide for • the operation guidelines 2,00 of Jackson Lake Reser­ • voir. Congress clearly intended that expansion Jan. i-eb. Ma"' April May June Jul\1 AUtiU6 5el'1T. Oct. Na,. Dec. 19~ 525 511 624 840 3,BO 7,20 3,422 1,01B 634 406 366 502 • of the park would not 1994·- 4B4 53B 3'10 1,139 4,24 1,921 597 615 367 436 265 45B conflict with Bureau of 1993·· 504 467 4B1 703 5,B1 4,61! 1,B1• 9B7 553 335 343 521 1992-- 360 3BB 401 1,724 3,l?'l 1,B33 1,152 605 403 320 4B5 427 • 4,21 5,745 452 467 Reclamation operations 1991····· 4B9 426 526 693 1,2B' 653 601 477 • or with the rights of the space holders in the • reservoir. The Bureau retains complete and exclusive control of the Lake lake trout fishery, avoid conflicts with • water rights, and maintain downstream flow and use of water in the reservoir includ­ • ing the right to raise and lower the water fisheries at historic levels. A flow of 280 cfs level at will; however, the Bureau will con­ was determined to be an acceptable mini­ • sider maintaining a constant level from June mum release level (WY Game & Fish 1992). through September and will consult with the • Climate NPS before developing anything in the • operation zone that might affect recreational facilities or use. The northwest Wyoming climate is charac­ • terized by short, cool summers and falls, In October of 1990, a contract was signed and long, cold winters which tend to linger . • late into the spring. The combination of high between the State of Wyoming and the • Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to maintain elevation, low humidity and surrounding minimum acceptable flow levels of 280 cubic mountain ranges cause this cool climate • feet per second (CFS) during the winter to which has. a large diurnal temperature protect the trout fishery. According to range. During summer months, daytime • Annear (1989), "management objectives for highs of 70-80 degrees F are commonly • the Snake River should emphasize estab­ replaced by nighttime lows below 40 de­ lishment of historic average releases or grees F with potential for subfreezing tem­ • natural instantaneous inflows to the reser­ peratures during all summer months. Winter voir, whichever is less, as a base flow to the minimum temperatures of minus 40 degrees • river:' A release of 400 cfs, which is slightly F are often recorded, with a record of minus • less than an average winter flow, is recom­ 63 degrees F observed at Moran on Febru­ mended as the optimal minimum winter flow. ary 9, 1933. • A flow of 400 cfs would protect the Jackson • • • I 20 Snake River Management Plan I I Precipitation in the area varies considerably. Southwest_ winds blowing against the Tetons, Hole valley can be categorized into the I aquatic, riparian, and upland zones. a range oriented from north to south, create I a rain shadow on the mountains' east side (Dirks & Martner,Anderson). Additionally, In the aquatic zone, consisting of aquatic I precipitation is greater in the northern part and semi-aquatic vegetation in the flood of Jackson Hole because the southern channels and tributaries, watercress I portion of the Teton Range is higher in (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum), white elevation. About 75 percent of annual watercrowfeet (Ranunculus aquatilis), and • precipitation is in the form of snow, between pondweed (Potamogeton spp.) are most November and April, when ground snow prevalent. Watercress is found primarily in • cover is usually continuous. the shoreline areas; white watercrowfeet is associated with gravel-rocky bottom envi­ • Vegetation rons; pondweed with silt bottom areas. • Other major species found in the aquatic . Climatic, topo-edaphic, and disturbance zone are star duckweed (Lemna triculca), • factors create a mosaic of vegetation com­ water milfoil (Myriophyllum spp.), mare's tail munities in the Snake River floodplain, (Hippuris vulgaris), monkey flower (Mimulus • terraces, and Jackson Lake area within glabratus), and horsetail (Equisetum fluvia­ • Grand Teton National Park. This mosaic tile) (Kiefling 1978). Moss and algae are also in this zone. Both encrusting and consists. . of forested and non-forested lands , • varying in age and species composition filamentous algae are present in the river proper, with encrusting algae most common (Anderson 1994). Vegetation in the Jackson • in swifter water. • A variety of vegetation species inhabit areas • immediately surrounding and paralleling Jackson Lake and the Snake River. This • area is what is known as the riparian zone. The riparian zone frequently has a high • number of edges and strata in a compara­ • tively small area. This results in a habitat which produces a large number of species, • reflecting the diversity of plant species and community structure (Thomas et al. 1979). • Sandbars, gravel bars, and abandoned river • channels provide substrate for pioneer terrestrial plant communities. Narrowleaf • cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) usually develops on gravel, interior willow (Salix • interior) on sand, and blueberry willow (Salix • pseudocordata) on silt and flooded areas. • Drawing by Denise Casey • • • • • • • Resource Overview 21 • In succession, these plants are often re­ rushes (Juncus spp.), and shrubby cinque­ • placed by climax blue spruce (Picea . foil (Potentilla fruticosa) . • pungens) in wetter sites and by sagebrush or bunchgrass in more xeric locations The upland zone, also known as the • (Kiefling 1978) . outwash plain, exists on more xeric or drier sites. The upland zone, extending from the • The most conspicuous plant community in river terraces to the foothills, takes up a the riparian zone is the floodplain forest • large portion of the valley floor. This zone which, in addition to climax blue spruce and • provides ideal conditions for vegetation such as big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), low • sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), rabbitbrush • (Chrysothamnus spp.), yarrow (Achillea lanulosa), bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron • spicatum), Idaho fescue (Festuca • idahoensis), balsamroot (Balsamorrhiza sagittata), lupine (Lupinus spp.), and wild • buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.). Existing in this upland zone is the sagebrush-forest • ecotone. Soil texture and moisture are the • primary factors affecting the ecotone be­ tween sagebrush and forest communities, • with lodgepole pine advancing into the narrowleaf cottonwood, contains lodgepole sagebrush area only during the wettest pine (Pinus contorta), quaking aspen · • years (Anderson 1994). (Populus tremuloides), russet buffaloberry • (Shepherdia canadensis), red osier dog­ Aspen (Populus tremuloides), a relatively wood (Cornus stolonifera), thinleaf alder • short lived tree species (80-100 years), (Alnus tenuifolia), balsam poplar (Populus occurs in both the riparian and upland balsamifera), and willow (Salix spp.). The • zones. It is considered a pioneer species understory contains a mixture of western and is succeeded by shade tolerant and • wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), alpine longer lived species. However, this succes­ timothy (Phleum alpinum), bluegrass (Poa • sion is reduced with the presence of recur­ spp.), brome grass (Bromus spp.), yellow rent fire in aspen stands. According to sweetclover (Melitotus officinalis), elk thistle • Anderson (1994) there has been very little (Cirsium foliosum), redtop (Agrostis spp.), aspen reproduction in the park since the • snowberry (Symphoricarpus spp.), and early 1900s because of fire suppression . • woods rose (Rosa woodsii). Exotic plant species are a serious concern Another plant community associated with • in the park. According to Shaw (1992), the the riparian zone is the marshy meadow. In plant species list for Grand Teton National • addition to willow, marshy meadows contain Park contained 88 exotics in 1976. In 1992, sedges (Carex spp.), bluegrass (Poa spp.), • 117 alien species were listed, representing tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), an increase of 33 percent. Control mea­ • sures are performed to reduce the popula- • • • I

22 Snake River Management Plan I I tion level of high priority exotic species, Pacific Creek. Caddisflies (Trichoptera), using chemical, mechanical, and biological mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies I controls. These species of highest priority {Plecoptera), and true flies (Diptera) com­ include musk thistle (Carduus nutans), pose over 98 percent of the total biomass of I spotted knapweed· (Centaurea maculosa), invertebrates in the river. Caddisflies of the diffuse knapweed (Centaura diffusa), Hydropsyche and Arctopsyche genera are • Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), common the most abundant group present. tansy {Tanacetum vulgare), common mullein • (Verbascum thapsus), oxeye daisy (Chry­ Fish • santhemum leucanthemum), butter-n-eggs (Linaria vulgaris), houndstongue The fish fauna of the upper Snake River i_s • (Cynoglossum officinale), black henbone species poor, which is typical of intermoun­ (Hyoscyamus niger), dyers woad (lsatis tain cold waters. The native fish fauna • tinctoria), dalmatian toadflax (Linaria includes Snake River cutthroat trout (Salmo • dalmatica), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), clarki spp.), mountain whitefish (Prosopium and St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum). williamsoni), Utah sucker (Catostomus • These species are most commonly found in ardens), bluehead sucker (C. discobolus), the park in roadside ditches, areas grazed mountain sucker (Pantosteus • by cattle, and throughout the riparian zone. platyrhynchus), bonneville redside shiner • (Richardsonius balteatus), speckled dace A survey of exotic plants in the Snake River (Rhinichthys osculus), longnose dace (R. • Bottom from the dam to the south boundary cataractae), Utah chub {Gila atraria), was done in 1993 (Haeker et al. 1993). In leatherside chub (G. copei), mottled sculpin • order of prevalence, the following exotics (Cottus bairdi), and the Paiute sculpin (C. • were found in the survey: Canada thistle, beldingi) (Kiefling). musk thistle, mullein, yellow toadflax, com­ • mon tansy, oxeye daisy, and houndstongue. Presently, four non-native salmonids inhabit the upper Snake River drainage. In 1933, • Aquatic Invertebrates both brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and • rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykis) were Invertebrate productivity in the Snake River introduced into the drainage by the Wyo- · • is slightly above average compared to simi­ ming Game and Fish Department. Brook lar rivers in the west and is an integral part trout can be found throughout the drainage • of the fisheries, wildlife, and ecosystem. though they prefer smaller streams and • The aquatic invertebrate fauna is fairly beaver ponds. The few remaining wild complex with approximately 170 species populations of rainbow trout are infrequently • having been collected and identified. Spe­ found in Jenny Lake and sections of the cies diversity is much lower between Jack­ Gros Ventre River. In 1890, both brown trout • son Lake Dam and Pacific Creek than in (Salmo trutta) and lake trout (Salvelinus areas downstream. One study showed that namaycush) were introduced into two lakes • twenty-three major species were identified in in the drainage by the U.S. Fish Commis­ • downstream areas whereas only seven sion. Within a short period of time, both identified species exist between the dam species drifted into Jackson Lake and other • and Pacific Creek. This may reflect fluctuat­ waters throughout the drainage. Now, lake ing flows from dam operation, differences in trout inhabit many surrounding lakes, • substrate, and lack of niche diversity above whereas brown trout are mostly confined to • • • • • • Resource Overview 23 • the Snake River and Jackson Lake bridge a~e closed to fishing from November (Kiefling). 1 through July 31. The period from April 1 • through July 31 is closed to protect spawn­ • The Snake River cutthroat trout ing Snake River cutthroat trout. (Oncorhynchus clarki spp.) inhabits the river • between Jackson Lake and Palisades Res­ The first special regulation initiated for the ervoir. The population supports an impor­ Snake River occurred in 1973. The creel • tant fishery and is of considerable scientific limit on cutthroat trout between Jackson • and aesthetic value. It is thought to be a Lake Dam and the Moose Bridge was re­ separate subspecies of the cutthroat series duced to two fish. In 1986, a slot limit was • due to its distinct fine spotting pattern and initiated on the Snake River from 1,000 feet the fact that it is well adapted to large swift below Jackson Lake Dam to Moose. The • streams (Kiefling). Other factors defining it regulation established was a limit of four • as a possible separate subspecies is that it trout per day with only one trout to exceed is fast growing but short lived with a high 15 inches. All trout 11 to 15 inches must be • rate of natural mortality. In fact, only one released, and fishing done with artificial flies pair of spawners returns for every 2,000 or lures only. In 1990, the slot range was • eggs laid (WGFD). During spawning in the extended to protect all fish between 11 and • spring of the year, Snake River cutthroat 18 inches. This was done to protect a migrate into the tributaries. Spawning suc­ greater percentage of the spawning fish. • cess depends highly upon the conditions of these tributaries which are easily affected by Beginning in 1996, there were two new • migratory blocks {beaver , natural regulations implemented on the Snake • cascades of water, and irrigation River: headgates), lack of cover, substrate size, 1) The creel limit on the Snake River from • turbidity, flooding, pollution from livestock, Yellowstone National Park to the West Table and lack of food production. Additionally, boat ramp was reduced to three fish and 2) • concerns regarding the future of the Snake The slot limit from 1,000 feet below Jackson • River cutthroat fishery have increased in Lake dam to the Wilson Bridge was modified recent years due to increased water devel­ to 12 to 18 inches. • opment, irrigation water demands, loss of aquatic habitat from flood control manage­ According to Annear, "management objec­ • ment, and greater fishing demand.(Rowan). tives of the Snake River should emphasize establishment of historic average releases • or natural instantaneous inflows to the Fishing regulations in Grand Teton National • Park are. contained within the Wyoming reservoir, whichever is less, as a base flow Game and Fish state fishing regulations. to the river:' A release of 400 cfs, which is • The use of fish or fish eggs for bait is prohib­ slightly less than the average winter flow, is • ited. Lakes closed to fishing to protect recommended in Annear's study as the nesting waterfowl include: Christian Ponds, optimal minimum winter flow. A flow of 400 • Hedrick's Pond, Moose Pond, Sawmill Pond cfs would protect the Jackson Lake lake and Swan Lake. Blacktail Spring Creek, trout fishery, avoid conflicts with water rights, • Upper Bar BC Spring Creek, Lower Bar BC and maintain downstream fisheries at his­ • Spring Creek, and Cottonwood Creek down­ toric levels. A flow of 280 cfs was deter­ stream from the Saddle Horse concession mined to be an acceptable minimum release • level. • • • • 24 Snake River Management Plan • leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), • Amphibians and Reptiles trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), • The boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and triseriata), the spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). A variety • the boreal toad (Bufo boreas), and the tiger of other raptors, waterfowl, and neotropical salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) are all migrants also use the river corridor. • native to the Snake River area. The leopard • frog (Rana pipiens) has not been observed Of particular inter­ in the park since the 1950s and is believed est, in relation to the • to have been extirpated (Peterson 1992). intent of this project, are the bald eagle, • Boreal toads, spotted and chorus frogs osprey, great blue • inhabit Schwabacher Pond, a beaver pond heron, and trum­ adjacent to the Snake River at the upper peter swan, all • Schwabacher Landing. In 1995, this site protected by sea­ supported breeding populations of chorus sonal closures on • frogs and boreal toads. Although no spotted the river (Grand Teton National Park • frog egg masses were found in the immedi­ ate vicinity, a number of juvenile spotted 1994, National Park • frogs used the area, suggesting that there Service 1994). probably was a breeding site nearby There are six known • (Baptiste 1995). Spotted and chorus frogs bald eagle nests along the river corridor; all were used in • and boreal toads are likely to be found in similar areas throughout the Snake River 1995. Eight of the 17 known osprey nests • corridor. and three of four known heron rookeries located along the river corridor were occu­ • Two species of garter snakes, common pied in 1995 (S&RM database). Another (Thamnophis sirtalis) and wandering (T. heron rookery in the Oxbow Bend is no • elegans), inhabit the riparian and upland longer used and may have been abandoned areas around the Snake River. The sage­ • brush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) is rare due to human disturbance (Reid 1994) .. in Grand Teton National Park. Only four Trumpeter swans historically nested in the • observations of this lizard have been docu­ Oxbow Bend and Sawmill Ponds areas but mented since 1965, two occurring in the presently use the river corridor only as a • Snake River upland zone (S&RM database). wintering area. It is believed that the Oxbow Bend swan nest also was abandoned due to • Birds human disturbance (Grand Teton National • Park 1988). Thirty-nine swans were counted According to the Grand Teton National Park between the Jackson Lake Dam and Moose • Resources Management Plan (1995), there during the January, 1995 mid-winter swan are over 300 species of birds within the • survey (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1995a). park. Some of the more prominent species • which use the Snake River aquatic and A number of other birds use the riparian and riparian zones for feeding, nesting, and upland areas for nesting, loafing, and feed­ • loafing are the white pelican (Pelecanus ing. Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), erythrorhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea common ravens (Corvus corax), great­ • herodias), bald eagle (Haliaeetus horned owls (Bubo virginianus), and • • • • • • Resource Overview 25 • Canada geese are some of the species Timbered Island south to Cottonwood • known to nest in the river bottom areas. Creek, and in a small area between Lake Creek (near Phelps Lake) and the Snake • Mammals River. • · Several of the park's 54 species of mam­ Moose and mule deer winter in the river • mals use the Snake River corridor. Beaver bottom, along with small numbers of elk and (Castor canadensis), river otter (Lutra bison . • canadensis pacifica), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) inhabit aquatic and riparian The Snake River bottom east of the.river is • zones. Small mammals such as red-backed open to elk hunting from Spread Creek voles (Clethrionomys gapperi), deer mice south to Ditch Creek from approximately· • (Peromyscus maniculatus), pocket gophers October 14 through December 3, as part of • (Thomomys talpoides), squirrels a park-wide elk reduction program (National (Spermophilus sp.), and chipmunks (Tamias Park Service 1995). • sp.) are abundant in riparian and upland areas and provide an important food base Rare and Endangered Species • for carnivorous mammals such as coyotes • (Canis latrans), martens (Martes All of the five endangered or threatened americana), badgers (Taxidea taxus), and species federally listed for this area have • weasels (Mustela sp.). Larger, more con­ used the Snake River corridor: the endan­ spicuous mammals which use the riverine gered peregrine falcon (Falco perigrinus) • areas include moose (Alces alces shirasi), and whooping crane (Grus americana), the • bison (Bison bison), elk (Cervus elaphus threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus nelsoni), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus leucocephalus) and grizzly bear (Ursus • hemionus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra arctos horribilis), and the gray wolf (Canis americana americana), black bear (Ursus lupus), now considered experimental. As of • americanus cinnamomum), mountain lion November, 1994, all wolves within Wyoming (Felis concolor), and grizzly bear (Ursus are regarded as part of the nonessential • arctos horribilis) . experimental wolf population. On National • Park and National Wildlife Refuge system • lands however, wolves are still considered a threatened species and are fully protected • under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Spe­ • cies Act (Fish and Wildlife Service 1995) . Peregrine falcons nest in and migrate • through the park. No peregrine nests are • located in the Snake River corridor, but park files contain 33 documented sightings of • Elk, moose, and bison use the riverine peregrine falcons in riparian and upland areas during the summer for calving (see areas of the river, indicating use of the area • map). Elk and bison calve in riparian and for traveling and foraging. Observations • upland areas west of the river from the have occurred from the early 1960s until the Oxbow south to Burned Ridge. Elk also present in the months of April through Octo­ • calve west of the river from the north end of ber. • • • 26 Snake River Management Plan • • The whooping crane is expected in this area as a migrant species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife • Service 1995b). From 1978 through 1995, • there have been twelve documented obser­ vations of whooping cranes in the Snake • River corridor. Of these, two were on the ground foraging or loafing, and seven were • observed flying within the corridor. The • remaining three whooping crane observa­ tion reports did not contain specific informa­ • tion about the birds' behavior (S&RM data­ base). • Bald eagles use the Snake River corridor throughout the year. As previously men­ • tioned, six bald eagle pairs currently nest, feed, roost, and loaf along the river corridor. • '!/(l-;p.. • Tracking data on grizzly bears collared by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Drawing by Denise Casey • indicate that at least three different grizzly Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) bears used the Snake River corridor area in • Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 1994 and 1995 (Baptiste and Cain 1994, Western boreal toad (Bufo boreas) • 1995). Spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) Leatherside chub (Gila copei) • Gray wolf sightings are rare in the park; in Jackson Lake Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis the past 20 years, there have been no • (Fontelicella or Amnicola) robusta) verified gray wolf sightings in the Snake Jackson Lake Snail (Helisoma (Carinifex) • River corridor. jacksonense) Payson's bladderpod (Lesquerella paysonii) • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994) has also identified the following fourteen • A number of these candidate species are candidate species which may occur within known to have used the Snake River corri­ the project area. All are category 2 species, • dor. Trumpeter swans regularly winter in the which means that current available data is riverine areas. There have been docu­ • insufficient to support listing as endangered mented sightings of wolverine, lynx, harle­ or threatened. • quin duck, northern goshawk, and logger­ head shrike in the river corridor. The boreal Preble's shrew (Sorex preblei) • toad, and probably the spotted frog, breed in Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) the Schwabacher Landing area, and are • North American wolverine (Gulo gulo likely to breed in other areas along the river luscus) . • corridor. North American lynx (Felix lynx canadens1s) Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) • Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) • • • • • • Resource Overview 27 • • Closures CULTURAL RESOURCES • A number of seasonal closures and public Cultural Resources Overview use limits are iri effect along the Snake River • (National Park Service 1994). These include People have used the Snake River Corridor the following areas: since prehistoric times. Archeological sur­ • veys along the floodplain below the dam • • From December 15 to April 1 , the have been limited, although reconnaissance Snake River floodplain from the Buffalo fork surveys have been completed for most of • downstream to Menors Ferry crossing north the corridor. Wright (1974) found no evi-. of the Moose development, is closed to all dence of prehistoric man in an area north of • Moose where a new sewage treatment plant public use for protection of wildlife during • critical wintering or nesting periods. was under construction. Love (1972) hy­ pothesized that the Snake River was a • • To protect bald eagles during nesting barrier to travel from east to west for the and fledging periods, all lands within 1/2 · prehistoric inhabitants of the valley. The • mile of all bald eagle nests are closed from archeological base maps from 1990 confirm • February 1 to August 15, when posted . this, as few archeological sites have been located in the area immediately west or east • • All lands within 250 yards of nesting of the river, between Ditch Creek and sites of osprey, trumpeter swan, and great Spread Creek. Most of the existing archeo­ • blue heron are closed from February 1 to logical sites near the floodplain are located • August 20, when posted, to protect birds to the east on terraces set back from the during nesting. river. It is likely that regular channel • changes would displace or destroy archeo­ • Cottonwood Creek is closed to fishing logical material on the floodplain. Prehis­ • from November 1 to August 1 from the outlet toric campsites around lakes and the Snake • of Jenny Lake to its confluence with the River delta area above Jackson Lake pro­ Snake River. · vide the largest source of information con­ • cerning prehistoric life in Jackson Hole . • The Snake River for 150 feet below Further archeological surveys will continue • the downstream face of the Jackson Lake • Dam is closed to fishing year-round . • • • • • • • • • 28 Snake River Management Plan • to investigate and document the prehistoric lines of 1980. These guidelines specify • cultural resources in the Snake River corri­ procedures to avoid long and short term • dor. adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modifications of floodplains. The guide­ • Europeans first entered the valley to trade lines also specify how to prevent direct or fur in the early 1800's. Undoubtedly, some indirect support of development in flood­ • individuals trapped beaver along the Snake plain. Grand Teton National Park has imple­ • River. Government expeditions and miners mented policy and procedures to insure this visited the valley during the period between mandate is carried out. Under these guide­ • 1850 and 1880. The first permanent Jack­ lines, cultural resources may be preserved son Hole settlers arrived in 1884. Extensive in their natural and historic setting if the site • prospecting occurred on the floodplain possesses exceptional significance and is • during 1880 to 1900. A number of placer eligible for inclusion in the National Register claims were filed-mostly near Pacific of Historic Places. • Creek, Spread Creek, and Deadman's Bar. Evidence of old placer mining activity is Six Historic Sites in the Snake River • most conspicuous in the Deadman's Bar Corridor area. None of the claims were patented and • the area was withdrawn from mineral entry There are six areas with extant historic • when the Monument was established in resources in the Snake River Corridor in 1943. Grand Teton National Park that are poten­ • tially eligible or already listed on the National The Snake River Corridor encompasses six register of Historic Places. The park will be • areas which contain historic buildings and preparing a .cultural resource managment • structures. The National Park Service is plan in the future to adress these properties currently surveying and evaluating the in greater detail. • extant historic resources of Grand Teton National Park to determine which resources Cattlemans Bridge: Located in the Oxbow • are eligible for inclusion in the National Bend area, Cattlemans Bridge has not been • Register of Historic Places. This formal formally evaluated for the National Register determination of eligibility process should be of Historic Places. Constructed by the • completed in 1997. The extant cultural Potholes Grazing Association in the 1940s, resources near the Snake River are prima­ the bridge is no longer utilized or maintained • rily early 2oth century tourist-oriented facili­ by that organization, as grazing has been discontinued in this area of the park. The • ties. Although there were homesteads and working ranches in the area, traces of these bridge is in bad shape but continues to be • operations have been removed by the Na­ used by fishermen and other visitors. tional Park Service. • Hogan's Fox Farm (The Buffalo Dorm): This • Park Policy Regarding Historic Sites in site, located near the Buffalo Entrance Riparian Zones Station, is a group of four log structures that • was originally a homestead but in 1926 was The legal mandates for management of developed into a small dude ranch by John • cultural resources in the Snake River Corri­ Hogan. Hogan built the large lodge building • dor are specified in the NPS Floodplain and three cabins to house up to twelve Management and Wetland Protection Guide- guests. The property was purchased by the • • • • • • Resource Overview 29

• YELLOWSTONE • NATIONAL PARK

• ' \, JOHN D \ ROCKEFELLER JR (. • ' ,-_/. • MEMORIAL •

• O 1 Kilomoto, • I Mi~ ' • • • GRAND • TETON NATIONAL • Buffalo Dorm • • • • • • • • •

• Murie Ranch • • • • • • Cultural Re5ource Location5 • • 30 Snake River Management Plan • Snake River Land Company in the 1930's. prepared as part of the cultural resource • The property was used until three years ago management plan. as seasonal employee housing, but due to • building code violations, now sits vacant . The Four Lazy F Dude Ranch: This ranch, • The National Register significance of this located on the Snake one mile north of property is currently being determined. Moose, was started by the Frew family, • Preliminary findings indicate that the lodge former patrons of the Bar-B-C, who decided . building, which served as the main house, to create their own semi-private dude ranch. • may be eligible under the criterion for archi­ This property is a life estate that will eventu­ • tecture. The site may also be eligible for its ally revert to full NPS management. It is the association with the Rockefeller financed best preserved of the early dude ranches • Snake River Land Company. Preliminary and the only one still operating on the west historical research indicates this property bank of the Snake. • was used as an administrative site by the • Rockefeller organization. Any proposed Menor's Ferry: This complex, which includes treatment of the site must wait until the fall the Maude Noble Cabin, is the only historic • of 1996 when a complete site history and site in Grand Teton National Park actively formal determination of eligibility is com­ staffed and operated for public use and • pleted enjoyment. During the summer months, a • replicated ferry is operated on the river and The Bar-8-C Dude Ranch: The Bar-B-C is period merchandise is sold in the store. • arguably the most famous of the Jackson Menor's Ferry is located adjacent to the Hole dude ranches, in large part due to the Snake River near Moose, a developed area. • efforts of Struthers and Katherine Burt, the Menor's Ferry is a significant representation of early homesteading and the transporta­ • original ranch owners. Katherine Burt had influence in the early development of Holly­ tion frontier in Jackson Hole. Bill Menor was • wood western films and was instrumental in the first homesteader on the east bank of bringing Hollywood film makers to Jackson the Snake River north of Jackson in 189{ • Hole. Struthers Burt was a writer who wrote where he established a small store and ferry stories in many national publications to operation. The Snake River was a barrier to • lobby for the creation of Grand Teton Na­ crossing, and therefore to settlement on the • tional Park. Struthers was also a east side of the river, until Menor built his novelist.whose most notable book, Diary of ferry. In 1918, Menor sold the operation to • a Dude Wrangler, documented his experi­ Maude Noble and a Mr. Sandell. (Two ences at the Bar-B-C. The 1990 Teton different first names have been found in the • Corridor Development Concept Plan deter­ literature.) Maud Noble's cabin on Cotton­ • mined that.the issue of treatment of the Bar­ wood Creek was moved to its present loca­ B-C would be determined by the results of tion in 1918. She operated the ferry until • an Historic Structures Report (HSR). The 1927, when a steel truss bridge was built recently completed HSR strongly recom­ across the river. Noble sold the 149 acre • mended retention of the property and pro­ property to the Snake River Land Company • posed an extensive and complete restora­ in 1929. In 1949, the Jackson Hole Pre­ tion of the ranch. The high cost associated serve Inc., under the sponsorship of J.D. • with this plan, among other factors, make Rockefeller Jr., restored Bill Menor's cabin that recommendation not feasible. A site and reconstructed the ferry. The property • plan adressing the future of this site will be was turned over to the National Park Ser- • • • • • Resource Overview 31 • vice in 1953, and placed on the National ered significant. A preliminary proposal for Register of Historic Places in 1969. the development of a "wilderness research • institute" to honor the Muries and their • Bill Menor's cabin is the most significant wilderness ideals is being developed in building within the compound, as it is one of cooperation with the Teton Science School. • the oldest structures in the park. The cabin Since the ranch is a life estate and still the functioned as ferry office, store, and resi­ property of the Murie family, this document • dence. Original structures on the site in­ proposes no changes to the status or use of • clude Menor's cabin, two associated utility the property. Further discussion and plan­ buildings and the Maud Noble Cabin. Re­ ning for the property will follow a long term • constructed facilities include an outhouse, a schedule in cooperation with the Teton wellhead, the cableworks, and the ferry. The Science School and the Murie family. • museum and transportation shed were • probably built in the 1950s by the Snake River Land Company for interpretive pur­ • poses (Carson 1964). A small log cabin moved from another location in the late • 1940's was developed into a small museum . • The museum houses an eclectic collection, including a "bull boat" fashioned from buffalo • hides and a dog sled. A variety of freight wagons, passenger coaches, carriages and • other vehicles are displayed in the transpor­ • tation shed. An archaeological survey was completed on this site in 1990, with no • significant findings. Located in the Menor's Ferry area, the Chapel of the Transfiguration • is a private inholding, listed on the National RECREATION USE PATIERNS AND • Register of Historic Places in 1980s. The TRENDS building is owned by the Episcopal Church. • Church services are conducted there in the Type of Use summer. This document proposes no • changes to the status or use of this property. Commercial river rafting accounts for the majority of recreational use on the Snake • River. Non-commercial rafting, guided The Murie Ranch:This ranch was listed on • the National Register of Historic Places in fishermen, private fishermen, kayakers and 1988. However, only the residence and canoeists also travel the river. There are 16 • studio associated with Olaus Murie were commercial operators authorized to provide considered significant in that nomination scenic float trips and/or guided fishing trips • on the Snake River. Currently, there are no form. The National Register nomination • form is currently under revision to include limits on numbers of guided fishing trips and the significant roles of Margaret Murie and existing limits on commercial float trips • Adolph Murie, the wife and brother of Olaus . permit an approximate 48% increase over • The use of the cabins by the founders of the average 1995 levels. Wilderness Society which was headquar­ • tered at the ranch could now also be consid- • • • • 32 Snake River Management Plan • • The commercial floating season corre­ guests. Another developed picnic site is sponds with the summer visitor season in located near Cattlemans Bridge which is • Grand Teton National Park. The highest use used by the Grand Teton Lodge Company. occurs between June 20 and August 20 and • declines after Labor Day. Although there Three scenic turnouts located along the have been recent increases in visitation • outside park road east of the Snake River during the months of May, September and receive considerable use during the summer • October in the park, inclement weather and by motorists who stop to look at and photo­ low water at these times tend to restrict graph the mountains to the west. The • commercial float trips. Approximately 20% of Snake River floodplain is in the foreground • visitors during 1995 floated the river during of this view. these off months. • Horseback riding near the Snake River Recreation Uses other than river floating originates primarily from Moosehead, Tri­ • angle X and Lost Creek dude ranches. Most • Other recreational uses that occur within the riding occurs by guests in the vicinity of Snake River Corridor include: fishing and these three ranches. • hiking along the banks, bird watching, driv­ ing or biking the RKO road, exploring the Commercial vs. Non-Commercial River • Bar BC Ranch, viewing wildlife and scenery Trips from the Oxbow turnout or other road-side • pulloffs, and creating artwork such as paint­ River recreationists can be divided into two • ing. These types of recreation comprise a distinct user groups: commercial and non­ smaller percentage of use and impact than commercial. Commercial users are paying • actually floating or fishing on the river itself. guests on a guided trip. Non-commercial • users are individuals who have the skill to No hiking trails are maintained by Grand undertake their own river trip. Slightly more • Teton National Park on the Snake River than 67% of the river users in 1995 were on floodplain. Most hiking originates from the commercial trips. The remaining were non­ • various road access areas and occurs along commercial visitors. Of all river users, 64% existing game or horse trails and abandoned were on commercial scenic float trips while • roads. Although no estimates have been 2.4% were on commercial fishing trips. • made, hiking activity in the area does not appear to be extensive. Group Type • Picnicking is permitted along the floodplain, • Commercial Scenic 64.3% but no developed public picnic areas exist. ---- • Probably for this reason, public use is not extensive. There are two designated com­ • mercial meal sites at Deadmans Bar and Private Fishing s.0% one at Schwabacker which are used exclu­ • sively by float trip concessionaires. A devel­ Commercial Fishing 2.4% oped picnic site exists on the floodplain west Private Scenic 28.3% • of Triangle X Ranch which is used by ranch • • • • • • • Resource Overview 33 • • Commercial Scenic Floating Guided Fishing • The number of people floating the Snake The cutthroat trout population inhabiting the River with one of the commercial outfitters Snake River supports an important sport • has generally increased throughout the fishery. The population is maintained by years. Since 1985, this use has increased natural reproduction, and no stocking of the • river in the park is presently done. The trout over39%. fishing season runs from April 1 through • October 31. Most fishing activity occurs Most float trips originate either at the Pacific • Creek launch area or at the Deadmans Bar when water flows and turbidities decline launch area, terminating either at after the annual run-off, usually in late July • Deadmans Bar or at Moose landing. Over or early August. Wyoming fishing regula­ • 60% of the commercial scenic trips float the tions and license requirements apply within • Deadmans Bar to Moose Section, while only the park. Commercial • High Day Commercial Use 1996 · fishing outfitters 80 have seen over a • 230% increase in • clients over the past 1O years. 111996HIGH DAY However use over • DETERMINED BY RIVER SECTION the last two years • has declined • slightly. There are currently 13 fish­ • ing permitees who have unlimited • 0 use. PacificC""k Triengl•X• o.,.Jn1tn'I• Schwabl.ohor• M°""· Trl.-..loX o...dm,n'o Sch_ohl, Moou PrilO!• • River Section Snake River Guided Fishing Statistics • 1985-1996 20% of the commercial scenic trips float • Pacific Creek to Deadmans Bar. The dis­ 3,SOOr------~ • tance of these trips varies from four to twenty miles, and the duration varies from 3,000 • slightly over one to six hours. There are 2,500 currently 101 launches per day permitted 2,000 • from Pacific Creek Landing to Moose. There 1,500 • are 3 permitted launches per day from Moose to the Wilson Bridge. See appendix 1,000 • one for the current commercial operating 500 • guidelines . • Guided Fishing 891 815 1,596 1,900 1,241 1,852 2,166 2,758 2,834 ,326 2,737 2,192 • • • • 34 Snake River Management Plan • 1990 and 1995. The purpose of Growth in Use these surveys was to obtain back­ • ground information about visitors The popularity of scenic float trips on the who use the Snake River and • Snake River in Grand Teton National Park information regarding visitor expec­ has increased in the last decade. Between • tations and perceptions about 1985 and 1995, total annual float trip use crowding on the river. (exp~essed as n_umber~ of people participat­ • ing) 1n the 25-mile section of the river be­ Summary of Results From the • tween Jackson and Moose increased 6.8% 1995 Visitor Survey (It should be noted that beginning in 1990 • private float trips were counted using a ' A random survey of river users voluntary trip permit system and it is esti­ • was conducted during the summer mated that only half of private floaters actu­ of 1995. Over a three month • ally register). The greatest increase in period from June through August, overall float trip use occurred in 1987 at • 211 visitors were surveyed. Follow­ 44%. Since 1985, commercial scenic float ing is a summary of survey results. trips have increased 39% and guided fishing • trips have increased 230%, though use has • declined slightly over the last two seasons. •

Rr.'er Use History 1980-1996 • 160000 160000 • 140000 140000 • 120000 120000 • c::::IPrr.iate Floaters -Guided Fishing • Dii'iliDConmercial Floaters

capacity • -carrying defined in 1978 plan • •

ro m 0 ~ m v ~ ro ro m ;; m m m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • Yea, • • VISITOR SURVEY RESULTS • This section presents a summary of the results of visitor surveys • conducted during the summers of • • • • • Resource Overview 35 • Figure 1 shows that overall, visitors Crowding and Other Conflicts gave the park a "B" for crowding. • Different areas within the park • An issue identified early in this received different grades. The planning process was the need to majority of visitors, 92%, gave the • evaluate appropriate river use Snake River a "B+". This was the levels. Specifically, it was deemed highest score given on this section • necessary to examine the percep­ of the survey. Campgrounds re­ • tion that while the river may be­ ceived the lowest scores; 34% of come crowded in the future, the visitors gave them a "C-", while • present levels of use are accept­ 26% gave the campgrounds an able. The survey needed to either "F". • verify the accuracy of this percep­ • tion, or to find out if present use levels are unacceptable. Figure 2 shows a summary of • perceived crowding in all of the To establish a reference point for a park areas combined. Overall • visitor's general perception of 31.8% of the visitors gave the • crowding, a number of park areas park an ."A" average, with the were presented on the survey for majority of visitors giving the park • evaluation. Visitors were asked to a "B" average. assess an area based on the • traditional letter grading system, Figure 2: Overall Crowdedness Evaluation • with an A+ symbolizing the least crowded or most favorable, and an • F- symbolizing the most crowded • ·or least favorable . • For analysis, these letter grades were assigned values from 1 to 15 • with A+ having a value of 15, B+ a value of 12, C+ a value of 9, D+ a • value of 6 and F+ a value of 3 . • Figure 1: Grade the Park for Crowding • When the Snake River was ana­ ~.------, • ·~-" 11.06 lyzed separately from other areas ~ within the park, over 53% of the r responses gave the Snake River • r r an "A", with over 75% at a "B" or • 4 above as shown in figure 3. The • 2 river was rated by 17.1 % as a "C" O Overall Parking Areas Visitor Centers Campgrounds Other or below. • Snalle River Scenic Turnouts Hiking Trails lnteipretive Prgms . • • • • • 36 Snake River Management Plan •

Figure 3: Snake River Crowding • eor------~ Figure 5: Change Plans due to Crowding • 75.8%"'1odtho-osll<>r"1>oY<> 12.1%ra»d""llw<""C0

Jenny Lake was listed as the most avoided wit 5.6% of visitors changing plans • During public meetings regarding the Snake .River Management • Visitors were next asked if they felt plan, parking congestion was that any areas of the river were • identified as an issue. Figure 4 crowded, if so which ones, and if shows a summary of public re­ • that crowding affected their trip. sponse concerning parking area The results described in figure 6 crowding, indicating that re­ • show that almost 70% rated the sponses were evenly divided on river as not crowded. Launch • this question. Over 54.6% rated areas were mentioned by 22% as parking a "B" or higher, while • crowded, followed by parking 37.4% rated it a "C" or lower. areas mentioned by 16%. Only • Figure 4: Parking Area Crowding 7% mentioned the river itself as osr------~ being crowded. • 54.6% rated parl

• 11.8% results for this question . Ranger Seivices • 8.5% Figure 9: Crowd Reducing Alternatives missing • 0.9% • 78.7% • While the majority of visitors felt • 10 current river use levels are accept­ • able, this planning process will 0 determine future use of the river. ditionalU..rFee 27.0 • etas 18.0 12.3 10.4 tl.8 ,., Visitors were asked if future re­ Perm~Sy,lllm 27.0 37.4 ... ,.. ,., ,.. Lim~ FwxeFaeifllWls 32.7 23.2 13.3 11.8 ,., • strictions on their use of the river '·' would be acceptable to create less Note: #'s are percents • crowded conditions. Figure 8 shows visitors overwhelmingly • Visitor Characteristics supported future restrictions on • their own use to create less crowded conditions, with almost One intent of this visitor survey was to understand the characteris­ • 70% responding yes . tics of visitors who use the river. • The average age of river users is • Figure 8 : Support Future Restrictions to Reduce Crowding 45 years old. Half of those sur­ veyed were from 37 to 54 years of • age. Eighteen percent of the visi­ tors surveyed were from Jackson, • Wyoming. Wyoming residents accounted for 23% of the sample. • The mountain states census region • added up to 42% and Californians represented 11 % of the users. All • 2.8% 3.3% regions throughout the United DK Missing States were represented to some • extent. The majority of visitors • were using the river for the first time and 37% rated their floating • and fishing skill level as novice . • • •I • 38 Snake River Management Plan • • •

Figure 10: Number of Trips as a Passenger Figure 11: Skill Level • 37.9% • • • 45.0 • 10to 15times none 2 to 9 times 20 or more times missing data 41.7 24.2 23.7 Note: #'s are percent's •

Figure 12: Number of Trips as a Oarsman • Interviewers stopped 263 visitors during the survey period and 42.7% • completed 241 interviews, a re­ 40 • sponse rate of 92%. • The responses to several of those 20 questions can be compared to • 7.1% 10 3.8% results from the 1995 survey. Specifically, visitors in 1990 were • 1O to 15 times none asked the following question con­ 2 to 9 times 20 or more times missing data • cerning control of future use: • Summary of Results From the ''The growing popularity of Snake 1990 Visitor Survey River fishing and floating trips • means Grand Teton National Park A survey was conducted in the • must consider ways to protect the summer of 1990 by personnel of quality of the wildlife and other • the Cooperative Park Studies Unit ' resources as well as the quality of from the graduate school of the the visitor experience. What are • City University of New York. The your feelings about controls over survey was conducted over a five • Snake River traffic inside the day period in late July, 1990. Visi­ National Park? (Such as limiting • tors were randomly contacted at the number of commercial fishing locations designated by Grand trips; mandatory permits; limits on • Teton National Park managers. floats on some sections of the The interviews were conducted at • river.) landings along the Snake River, at • the Gros Ventre campground, the Moose Visitor Center and Jenny • Lake. • • •I • • Resourc;e Overview 39 • EXISTING ACCESS AREAS . Over 86% of the visitors surveyed • in 1990 supported future controls as compared with 67% in 1995. There are six areas between Jackson Lake • Dam and Moose that provide easy access • to the Snake River. Visible impact to vegeta­ Control River Use tion has occurred in all these areas. Vegeta­ • tion is rapidly eliminated by vehicles where no control of traffic or well-designated roads Yes 86.1% • exist. Heavy pedestrian traffic has also • resulted in loss of vegetation in some areas. The following describes the existing condi; • Not Sure 9.9% tions of these sites . • Jackson Lake Dam Area • After reconstruction of the Jackson Lake • Visitors were also asked how many Dam in the late 80's the access to the area times they had floated the river. was redesigned, providing direct vehicle • Over 55% were on their first trip in access to the north side of the river. A 27 • 1990 as compared to 37% on their car parking and picnic area was developed first trip in 1995. and was intended to provide fisherman access to the dam area with the parking • Times on River area adjacent to the river removed. Since • that parking area was never removed the 60 majority of fisherman and users of the area • 55.5 park along side the river. On the south side • of the river, vehicular access was removed with pedestrian access provided from a • parking area adjacent to the south side of • the dam . 2.7 Visitor use in this area is intensive-most • First Time Once Before A Few Times Many Times occurring within 2000 feet of the dam. An­ • gler use has averaged over 10,000 days • Data was also gathered concern­ annually since 1980 and boat launchings ing type of trip.. Over 76% of the average about 1,200 per season. Consider­ • visitors were on commercial trips able traffic by motorists for sightseeing as compared with 66.7% in 1995. purposes also occurs. This area is the most • heavily used and congested along the river. Type of Trip Motorists often park in the launch area, • Commercial 76.8% blocking access to the river for those want­ • ing to put-in. The area immediately adjacent to the river is completely devoid of vegeta­ • tion and the numbers of cars are very visible • to those traveling along the park road . • • • 40 Snake River Management Plan • Deadmans Bar • Pacific Creek Vehicle access is by a narrow, steep and partially paved road about 0.7 miles long. • A paved road, boat launching site and An average of 41 commercial boats • parking area are provided at Pacific Creek. launched per day during the 1995 season. Approximately 14 commercial scenic boats Parking is often confusing and disorganized • per day are launched at this site, or 20% of as well as congested. As at Pacific Creek, during low water gravel often builds up • the commercial operations. The layout of the launch area works well; however there is impeding launching. There are two vault • erosion occurring on the steep bank by the toilets at this site that often have long lines launch area, and the asphalt is beginning to when commercial operations bring large • unravel. Problems with launching occur numbers of clients at once. when water levels decrease due to gravel • build up. Periodic removal of small amounts There are two meal sites adjacent to the • of gravel has been done by the park periodi­ launch area, one used by the Boy Scouts cally to maintain an adequate launch area. and one used by the Grand Teton Lodge • Company. • • • • • • Pacific Creek Launch • Cattlemans Bridge • An unmarked dirt road provides access to Deadmans Bar the cattleman's bridge area. This primitive • area provides access to the river primarily for fisherman and sightseers. Some boat • launching does occur, by mainly by canoe­ ists using the Oxbow bend area. There is • limited sight distance at the junction of the access road and the main highway. • • Cattlemans Bridge • • • •I I

I Re5ource Overview 41 I

I Lower Schwabacher I Access to Lower Schwabacher is by a 1.1 I mile gravel road which becomes very dusty in mid-summer. The parking and launching I areas are not paved, but are delineated by large boulders. The area is used primarily • as a boat launching site and for fishing access. Other visitors also occasionally use • the site. • • • • • • Schwabacher Landing • • Moose The Moose access are is located east of, • and adjacent to, Grand Teton National Park • headquarters. Most float trips terminate here and use is intensive. Several commer­ • cial scenic operators meet their clients here . •

• Moose Landing • • • • • • • • Ii • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• PART FOUR, MANAGEMENT PLAN .. • • • • • • • • • • • "Sttue,,, M.eia,,t"' ~ ~- t4e ,zwu, maae,, ~- 't4tted {o,t­ • «JMd Me a~dotft4i,,, Md~~ fl°"' ""I 4¥t, A~ ~- t4e /id (Q44 t'ketze Md~ "' o«e ~ ia- • 4t

• Natural Resources • The effects of the dam and water flow • on the river system are understood and • The natural functions of plants and controlled to protect both the natural re­ • animals, as they relate to the Snake River, sources as well as the recreational experi­ • are preserved and enhanced . ence in the river system. • • Water quality is regularly monitored • and remains high . • • 44 Snake River Management Plan • • Recreational Experience • Safety regulations and licenses, for river users • • Recreation opportunities such as scenic floating and fishing are provided for • • Yearly boat registration for non- within the Snake River Corridor, where commercial river users consistent with natural resource preserva­ • tion. • Operational and administrative re- • quirements for commercial boating and • A variety of options are available to • fishing companies float the river: private boats, commercial tours, rental boats, and guided fishing. • ·. • Commercial use permits and regula- tions are in effect anytime the river is open • • All private users are aware of river to the public conditions and the skills required to safely • complete the float. • Routine maintenance, such as gar- • bage collection and maintenance of privies, Outfitting roads, and launch areas • • Commercial trips are planned to • • All law enforcement regulations such avoid congestion at launch sites. as prohibitions on off-road driving and • overnight camping • Outfitters share river use responsibly, • and help clients gain a better appreciation of • Required actions outlined in other river resources a:nd ethics through educa­ • park management plans, such as the Hu­ tional and instructional trips. man/Bear Management Plan, the Grazing • Management Plan, or the Natural Re­ • There is no illegal outfitting. sources Management Plan • Launch Sites • • No motorized craft allowed on the I river • Launch sites are organized, with adequate parking and launch facilities. The • Equipment requirements continue for • sites are uncongested but not overdevel­ commercial operators (refer to appendix one oped. for a complete description of minimum • equipment requirements); Existing Guidelines • • A commercial shuttle service may be • There are a number of guidelines which are available for private river users presently, and will continue to be, in effect. • These guidelines include: • Commercial operators will continue to • offer a variety of lengths of trips covering • Existing closures to protect wintering different sections of the river • and nesting wildlife • • On-going wildlife monitoring efforts • • • • • • Management Plan 45 • Management Plan Several public comments were made The National Park Service developed this • requesting additional opportunities for final Snake River Management Plan as a commercial guided fishing on Jackson Lake. • result of comments and input received on Grand Teton Lodge Company and Signal the Draft Snake River Management Plan Mountain Lodge currently hold permits to • released in August of 1996, and the Snake offer guided fishing on Jackson Lake. The River Management Plan/Environmental • Lodge Company has the contractual right to Assessment released in April 1997. This provide any additional fishing services on • Snake River Management Plan is scheduled the park's lakes, if the park were to to begin implementation during the summer • authorize them. of 1999. • In addition, several public comments were Public comment throughout this planning • process generally reflected a desire to see made requesting additional commercial future use levels on the river remain fishing use of the Moose to Wilson section, • consistent with existing levels . which flows within park boundaries for the first three miles. The Bureau of Land • After release of the Draft Snake River Plan Management owns the Wilson launch and • in August of 1996, many of the commercial takeout site. This section is open to all outfitters asked that a simple average of use commercial fishing outfits currently • not be applied to determine launch permitted by the park. Grand Teton National numbers, since use varies widely depending Park administers all commercial activity • on user demand, weather, and time of the which takes place within the park, even if • week, as well as time of the season. In those activities extend beyond its response to that request, the preferred boundaries. The park will continue to • alternative presented in the Snake River authorize permits for commercial use of the Management Plan/Environmental Snake River from Moose to the park • boundary. When the Bureau of Land Assessment in April 1997 proposed to cap use at existing levels, with commercial float Management undertakes a management • plan for land it administers along the river and fishing use caps set in a way that • provide some flexibility for fluctuating downstream of the park, the National Park demand. Several comments received on Service will work with the BLM as • appropriate during their planning process. the April 1997 draft felt that the system • proposed of daily caps in addition to monthly caps was going to be difficult to Recreational Use • manage. Several other comments from commercial operators requested that the Commercial use of the riparian areas would • current reserve allotment system remain in continue, with the following provisions: effect. Other comments reflected the desire • Scenic Floating to see the no-action alternative • implemented, no parking restrictions at Each individual scenic float operation will launch areas and improvements to the • launch areas developed. Some commercial retain its current permitted daily launch outfitters felt that they were regulated quota, not to exceed a monthly cap. This • monthly cap will be based on each enough and that private users should be concessionaire's highest month over the • regulated more stringently. • • • • 46 Snake River Management Plan I • 1994, 1995 and 1996 operating seasons. remain at 103 per day, more than the aver­ By utilizing each concessionaire's historic age, to allow flexibility for fluctuations in • high month, current use of reserve weather, water, clients numbers, etc. This allotments will be factored into the monthly limit on the commercial outfitters will reduce • use limit. current permitted levels by approximately • 23%, but current use levels will easily be However, in order to give the accommodated. This is a 10% increase • concessionaire's additional flexibility to over July 1996 levels. In other words, address unusual high use days, the reserve existing use will not be reduced, but the • allotment system will remain, based on the potential for significant growth has been • following system. Historic use of reserve eliminated. allotments over the last three operating • seasons will be factored into individual For example: If a concessionaire has a permits. As with the monthly allotments, monthly not to exceed (NTE) of 500 • each company's reserve will be based on its launches, with a daily NTE of 20, he may • highest monthly reserve use. Each launch an average of about 16 boats a day. company's reserve may be used to exceed Actual weather and customer patterns • its daily permitted launch quota; however, it suggest that use will vary, and he may will count towards the month cap since launch up to 20 boats a day as long as at • these number's were factored into the the end of the month he has not exceeded • monthly use limit. 500 launches. • Individual permits will be assigned through the concessions program; individual launch • numbers will be allocated through the con­ • cessions operating plan for each individual outfitter. The intent is to give each conces­ • sionaire some flexibility to take into account weather and client patterns. Each current • permittee with no use will retain its daily allotment, and its monthly cap will be based • on the lowest of all float trip operators. In • 1999, when the new commercial prospec­ tuses are issued, each permitee who has • not utilized its permit two out of the last • three years will find its use subject to reallo­ cation. • The monthly overall cap for commercial • scenic use will be 2,603 launches, which will The above graph shows the historical aver­ • include 43 reserve allotments. This provides age use in relation to both the old limits and a potential average of 84 launches per day, the new proposal. Previously, limits were • but in reality, all days are not amenable to only in effect from June 1O through Sept. 15. the same degree of river use. Therefore, • This plan proposes that limits be in effect total daily scenic launches permitted would year round. • • • • • • Management Plan 47 • Guided Fishing In order to spread use out from the crowded • river sections, the following incentive will be • In commercial guided fishing, as in scenic provided to float the Moose/Wilson section. floating, the intent is to easily accommo­ On this section, fishing guides will be al­ • date current levels of use, but eliminate lowed to float 3 launches per day that will be the potential for significant growth. applied to their daily cap, but not to their • Guided fishing launches over the last three monthly cap. The goal, as in the upriver • seasons have averaged 13/ day, never sections, will be to have no more than 20 exceeding 19 launches/day. The goal is to launches per day on the Moose/Wilson • have no more than 20 guided fishing section. If this is exceeded more than 5 days launches on any given day between Jack­ a month, than a more restrictive cap will be • son Lake Dam and Moose . explored. • Each fishing outfitter will be assigned a Current rules applicable to guided fishing • monthly cap, based on its highest month and float trips concerning designated over the 1994, 1995 and 1996 operating launching, landing and lunch stop sites will • seasons. Those fishing outfitters with little continue. Stopping commercial scenic boats • use over the last three seasons will be other than at designated locations along the assigned a monthly cap based on the lowest river will be prohibited. Other administrative • of all current fishing outfitters. This will or operational requirements to remain in provide a monthly overall total of 526 com­ effect include monthly reporting of opera­ • mercial fishing launches, a potential average tions, boatman qualifications, equipment • of 17 launches/day. As in scenic float opera­ standards, provision of an interpretive pro­ tions, all days are not amenable to the same gram to the public, safety requirements and • degree of fishing use, and we anticipate that Park Service approval of prices. These will actual use will fluctuate. In 1999, when the continue to be addressed and modified, if • new commercial prospectuses are issued, necessary, through annual concession • those permitees who have not utilized their operating plans. permits two out of the last three years, will • find their permitted use subject to realloca­ Existing picnic sites will continue to be tion. available to both private users and desig­ • nated commercial users, if conditions permit • Each guide service will be limited to six and no new resource implications arise. No launches per day. As in the current conces­ special maintenance will be conducted, • sions operating plan, guided fishing opera­ such as grading roads to keep these sites tions will phone in their use numbers and open to vehicles. • locations to park dispatch each morning . Dispatch will provide the locations of other Commercial boats will continue to wait to • launch until others are out of sight; this guides, so that fishing operations can • spread themselves out voluntarily through regulation has been in effect for some time. the other sections. If the standard of 20 If excessive crowding becomes an issue, on • launches per day is exceeded more than 5 the ramps or on the river, designated launch • days a month, a more restrictive daily cap times may be instituted. • will also be placed on each outfit. • • • 48 Snake River Management Plan • Commercial rafts will be limited to craft's Launch Areas • which are rated to carry 17 passengers or less, with the exception of Jackson Lake • The NPS will conduct minor dredging at Lodge's big boats,_which are rated to carry launch sites. Gravel removal will be con­ • up to 24 passengers. ducted to provide reasonable access to the visitor when necessary. Dredging will be • In 1999 when the commercial prospectuses conducted only in the immediate vicinity of are issued, the number of rafts per group the launch areas, and only when deemed • may be further limited and certain shuttle necessary by park managers. • frequencies may be required. Discussions of the launch areas are concep­ • The following passenger meeting points will tual in this plan. Site specific design work be designated: Moose, Pacific Creek, and • will be completed prior to construction. concession operated sites. However, com­ • mercial operators will be encouraged to Jackson Lake Dam meet clients at their own facilities. If crowd­ • ing at parking areas becomes a problem in The NPS will adopt the conceptual design the future, commercial operators may be developed during the 1980s, when the • required to meet clients off site. Jackson Lake Dam was reconstructed. At • that time, the area now used for parking and The launch site at Triangle X will continue to boat launching was the construction staging • be utilized by the ranch. area. A schematic site plan was developed to rehabilitate much of the disturbed area • Private Floating while providing access to the river. The • plan's intent is still valid. Pedestrian access Non-commercial use will continue with the to the river will be provided for a variety of • following provisions: uses including fishing, walking, picnicking or just sitting and enjoying the environment. • A monitoring system was developed and Parking for vehicles will be provided just began the summer of 1997 to obtain accu­ • north of the river, in an area which has trees rate counts of private users. If non-commer­ for shade and provides some separation cial use exceeds standards outlined in • from the river bank. A walkway will be built chapter 5, the number of private boaters to provide easy access from the parking lot • allowed on the river per day will be limited to the river. In addition, access, but no through the implementation of a permit • developed slip, will be provided for the system. If use levels do not significantly loading and unloading of small boats. Lim­ • increase, no restrictions are anticipated. ited handicapped parking will be provided as well. • • ,..._-: . Cattlemans Bridge • A survey and evaluation will be initiated to determine the historic • significance of the bridge prior to • any action taken in this area. • • •I • • Management Plan 49 • Depending on the outcome of that survey, • the following is proposed: Pacific Creek • Launch/Parking: This plan proposes to The Pacific Creek launch site will be stabi­ maintain the primitive environment at lized. • Cattlemans Bridge but develop an acces­ sible launch site for those wishing to explore The boat launch is in an eroding section of • the Oxbow area. Development at the site will the Snake River just downstream of the • be kept to a minimum. The topography Jackson Lake Dam. The streambank mate­ provides easy access to the river with mini­ rial is highly susceptible to erosion because • mal environmental effect; this site is appro­ it is small (sand- to silt-sized) and priate for all types of users because they noncohesive. The launch is located in an • can launch and return to the same spot, as outside bend along a small channel, sepa­ • well as float a quiet section of river. Con­ rated from the main channel by a small Ill figuration and use of Cattlemans Bridge island. The outside bend location increases launch will continue as it exists currently. water velocities which remove the erodible Minor changes will include delineation of streambank material. Water has undercut • circulation and parking with rock, wood the bank so severely that the launch has • bollards and barrier logs. The approach to become unstable and difficult to use. the river access will be changed to allow • easier backing. Areas not necessary for The park service proposes to armor the circulation and parking will be revegetated. bank with riprap. This should slow erosion of • material. This will also help stabilize the • Bridge: The bridge poses a serious safety launch area in its current location. Addition­ hazard. Depending on the outcome of the ally, a unisex restroom will be constructed to • survey and evaluation, the bridge will either replace the existing port-o-john, and the be removed or stabilized. parking area will be striped to better define • parking . •

• ----- • ) .....I.J.._.J-J ' . . .· . Q, , . . ,' . • . . ' .. ,: ·.--c..,.~ • .:. ·... ~ -ii ·t • .··.t • ..... --,. • ·,.~,,,,-~'-""=-· •Ca ....,.,.,.~~~<.·"--· lATl'L.e'-'At-tb """'°,ee • ~~NA..1Wt. • • • • 50 Snake River Management Plan • high water event, and to make it more ac­ • Deadmans Bar cessible. • Deadmans Bar will be slightly changed to Moose Landing • accommodate use patterns. Bollards and horizontal logs will provide better delineation No changes in the Moose landing and • of the parking area. In addition, the ap­ parking area are proposed. proach on the north end of the parking lot • will be expanded slightly to accommodate RKO Landing • temporary van and trailer parking for those waiting to access the launch ramps. The Minor improvements to the RKO landing • parking area will be redesigned to provide road will be made to reduce the number of designated spaces and separation between deep potholes in the roadbed. Minor im­ • commercial and private users. provements will be made to eliminate pot­ • holes in the parking area. No increase in Ill Also, an additional double unisex restroom current use is proposed and no commercial will be constructed. use of this site will be permitted. • Worm Hole • The Worm Hole parking area will be wid­ • ened slightly to allow head-in parking on the eastern edge of the lot. Parking will be • delineated by horizontal log parking blocks, II and the lot will be delineated by a combina­ tion of vertical log bollards and placed • boulders. A "hammerhead" backing area will be added to assist in pulling out of the • parking spaces. No commercial use of this site will be permitted. •I • • • • Schwabachers Landing • Schwabachers Landing will be remain as is. • The parking area will be better delineated • with vertical logs and placed boulders. The existing pit toilet will be relocated to the • upper bench to prevent its' loss in another • • • • • Management Plan 51 • • A research and monitoring program Natural Resources will be developed to gather information on • river otter population and how visitors effect • • Existing closures will remain in effect that population. to protect wintering and nesting wildlife and • spawning fish. Efforts to monitor activities • A research and monitoring program for nesting eagles, herons, osprey, trumpeter will be developed to determine how lack of • swans, raptors, and amphibians will con­ flushing flows, due to the dam, affect cotton­ • tinue at present levels. wood communities . • • Water levels in the river will be man- • A research and monitoring program aged as they are now. will be developed to fully evaluate the long • term effects of dredging at the launch areas . • • Use of the riparian area by horses and other livestock will be subject to the Operational Issues restrictions stated within other park docu­ • If funding permits, NPS will staff launch sites ments, such as the Natural Resources • Management Plan and the Grazing Man­ during busy times. • agement Plan. Additional educational and interpretive • • Concession companies will be re- signage will be provided at the launch sites . quired to bear-proof all lunch stop sites and • ·educate all float trip employees about secur­ • ing objects that would attract a bear, in the. ways described in.the Human/Bear Manage­ • ment Plan . • • A system will be developed and • implemented to monitor effects of visitor use on vegetation. A revegetation plan will be • developed to mitigate any changes to veg­ etation from visitor use. Trails at the launch • areas will be clearly defined to eliminate use • of undesignated trails . • • Grand Teton National Park will con- tinue to work with the Bureau of Reclama­ • tion on the Minimum Stream Flow Study now underway to understand and mitigate • the dam's effect on water flows as it relates • to recreation, hydrologic process, fisheries • and water quality. • • The water quality monitoring program • will be continued . • • • • • • ••• ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PART FIVE,· • INDICATORS, 5TANDARD5 & MONITORING . • • • • ••• • .~------• • • • • PART FIVE: INDICATORS, STANDARDS AND MONITORING • his section of the plan discusses the • T concept of carrying capacity, describes the park unit and its management objec­ • what measures will be used to ensure that tives!' river conditions remain in compliance with • the desired future conditions and what In other words, for the purposes of this plan, methods will be used to monitor conditions carrying capacity is interpreted not as a • on the river. In addition, this section Olltlines prescription for numbers of people, but as a future research needs as they relate to the prescription for numbers of people appropri­ • ate for desired ecological and social condi­ river corridor. The indicators and standards • presented here are preliminary, will be field tions. Measures of appropriate conditions tested further during the summer of 1997, replace measures of maximum sustainable • and revised as necessary. It is the goal of use often used in relation to other types of this plan to identify indicators and standards carrying capacities (e.g. range capacity for • that will ensure that desired future condi­ domestic ungulates of wildlife habitat) • tions are met. Due to staffing and funding (VERP, 1995). constraints, these measures need to be • easily monitored as well as adequate A major premise of this planning process is indicators of overall river conditions. that desired conditions, Which are qualitative • in nature, must be translated into objective • Carrying Capacity measurements through the use of indicators and standards. It is important to remember • In the past, the question of how much public that standards do not represent goals or use is appropriate in a national park has desired conditions. Standards represent the • been framed in terms of visitor "carrying trigger points that define when conditions • capacity:' The Park Service is required by become unacceptable. law to address carrying capacity in planning • for parks: the 1978 National Parks and When indicators show that visitor experi­ Recreation Act (P.L. 95-625) requires each ence and resource conditions do not meet • park to include "identification of and imple­ these standards, management actions will • mentation commitments for visitor carrying be taken to restore acceptable conditions. capacities for all areas of the unit." (Arches • VERP Plan, 1995) . • For the purposes of this plan, carrying • capacity is defined as "the type and level of visitor use that can be accommodated while • sustaining the desired resource and social • conditions that complement the purposes of • • • 54 Snake River Management Plan • Social Indicators and Standards • • • • • • • • • • • • • Resource Indicators and standards • fi;:g.ppg8a,Adf:a.r1~.prp~qs!iAi.t~;8trtr~1~;~;~~1en.ri~tf;;!W1::fi1~,(r;,:('!'1:,:tit,c;;tc:····· ····· • \t~W~dvy6'N12rc!1trinM,i.n°prP~~9tivit}tpVf'{a.\tiyg,¥ea.r,r9ry'qirJgi'~~e(!g~.,i•\n· ..•···,•····..••c ... • • •• , ••• ·>>I :,,;~q,gof1r1~arg1t,rei1Jq'\n·a,9t[vity;;gs,~,~fir,~~..!?Y;t~~E!!9~Y~CC~P.flD9*ftt,!5r~.eidJn.g ;: ·. · < ,. "'' .·•.{iJ.!t~f!lpts,,.• at; nestsit~s,'c)\(~f$.thre,e year •..(u.11n,1ng ayera,.g~~s;';r;.,•...•...•....•...·•'.;:···;..••..... ·:·, . .. • •. ;;~.lli[lt~in(9onsi&teflf)pr9q~ctj\/Jtyiat,in9lvjcl#a,i.neisfj~.itg~,i~~t(are1•,1;i,~to.ric~lly••.. ··•··• •:;rElt.iabll=;t)rPt1nslst!:lpt(i;~.·•~chryiJ.oil~hei.r~?EpXR9W):tjyir,a,'ty.ip··y~a;f:periP~:·. {.,;: • r< .<< •:I;'1{;"fl:iis,r:p~.a.ns\flqi9prisec.L1.tiiey~ars olCnpn,prqql:(ctivih\ialJl:le'si:l;.nest•sit~s};{\ : ;o;, .. y.-,: :::,,: :::,:-.::,,~:' :>-? ,,c. ,·c:,·':=<-·--: -:: "-:<:~:: '/: ." 0:: /:-..;: :'< ·:\;·':~x·:-':~,;;J-<::::t'- _.z"c::\::-:;r.,:-.:;:-;::.'_:;.,"':: ':-i/. /'/:.·\. • ; 1c1l=:ntiw:pr~ot<:1rn'~9d•·.initiat@5sct1uu9B·/itp9ii.si.ot~,;,·· ·,< ,.· '>"·•''".····:••···•;,·•"·.><···•.••••.•·...... ; jt,~~t£Ji§8.~}~w~~~l~~~1;~~rim~i~llif[~~0:~;t\:~iJ1~)~~1~,i~~:r~r}!;0~~~i;i~! • :\\tv1~y.?t~9,irnp1?mEldt:n~.\¥'~105:u~El5:';(?itisfoict.p~qri'.~frpm/gi~grn·~a,r[irgtr9rr1...·••· • tr. ra.tts:orfish ing.•bpatii·ne,ancritic:a..1..12rEla%i·••./\.•.•.•.. ··.·...... ::; •. ,.,,.·····{\'.(········/·:···· .:,.••...••.;.· ,r· ,• . ·.. c1Y1a.yal.so,ni.6nitpqf9rcqntaf!liriart~supfi.fl.S}t>:DJ1·defivatiy13s;i~i··eigg•,~hElll•:)1:: • •frcigrJJfferits:prin th!:! aqu~tic envir9nrnehL ...... • .''.'···· • • • • • • • .,..-• • lndic:ators, Standards & Monitoring 55 • • • • • • • • • • • • note: bald eagles and great blue herons were chosen as a primary resource indicator for the following reasons: • They are at the top of the food chain. • • Ongoing monitoring efforts and good historical data exists to monito.r trends . • They are sensitive to human disturbance. • • They are a good indicator of the relative health of the fishery. • • Monitoring • Continued monitoring will be necessary in reports of new activity investigated. Trends • order to determine if river conditions are over time in occupancy and productivity will consistent with the desired future conditions be monitored. · • outlined in the plan. Listed below are ac­ tions that will be accomplished on a yearly Vegetation Monitoring • basis following completion of this plan: • Periodic monitoring of the river access areas Bald Eagle Monitoring will be conducted to determine if excessive • trampling is occurring and social trails are Known bald eagle territories will continue to forming. If this is the case, then measures • be monitored on a biweekly basis from late such as formalizing trails, fencing and reveg­ March to mid-June when young are from 5-7 etation efforts will be considered. • weeks old. All young within Grand Teton NP • will continue to be banded with aluminum Water Quality color-coded and USFWS bands by Park • biologists. Periodically, new areas will be There has been an ongoing water quality • surveyed for bald eagle occupancy, and monitoring effort by the National Water • •I • 56 Snake River Management Plan • • Quality Assessment Program. This program system and how visitor use impacts natural monitors for phosphorus levels, total ni­ resources: • trates, turbidity, summer water temperatures and contaminants: Improve the understanding of how recre­ • ation activities affect wildlife, and how this • Concessions Operations activity is connected to populations and communities. • Concessions operations will be evaluated annually to insure that the public is provided Develop a specific study to gather informa­ • with satisfactory service and that manage­ tion on the river otter population and how • ment objectives are met. visitors affect that population. • River Use Determine how lack of flushing flows due to the dam affect cottonwood communities. • All aspects of river use including commercial • operations, private use, shoreline fishing and hiking will be monitored to insure that • the desired future conditions, indicators and standards are not violated. • Snake River Management Plan • In order for the river management program to be effective and responsive to change, • there will be an ongoing effort to identify, • evaluate and correct problems and deficien­ cies. As new information becomes available • through the monitoring process and future research, the River Management Plan may • be modified. Policies found to be inconsis­ • tent with the protection of natural and cul­ tural resources will be revised as needed. • Changes that affect use allocations will not be implemented without allowing time for • public review and input and for concession­ aires to adjust their operations. To assure • that the River Management Plan remains a • functional document, it will be reviewed annually by staff involved in river operations. • • Research Needs • As a result of this study, the following future research needs were identified as neces­ • sary to better understand both the river • • •I • • Planning Team 57 • • Planning Team and Consultants • Planning Team Nancy Arkin Park Planner/Planning Team Leader • Mary Beth Baptiste Biological-Technician Mel Denton Buffalo Sub-District Ranger • Robin Gregory Landscape Architect George Helfrich Concessions Management Specialist • Tony lfland Biological-Technician Mike Johnson Cultural Resource Specialist • Darin Martens Landscape Architect Laura Shearin Concessions Management Intake Trainee • Doug Spaeth Biological-Technician • Jean Weiss Editor Consultants • Joan Anzelmo Chief, of Concessions Steve Cain Senior Wildlife Biologist • Colin Campbell Chief Ranger Sue Fullerton GIS Specialist • Tedra Fox .Chief, Land Use Planning, Santa Monica Mountains NRA Raymond Gunn Chief of Concessions, Grand Canyon National Park • Marty Meyer River Ranger Mason Reid Wildlife Biologist • Rebecca Rhea Concessions Management Specialist Bob Schiller Chief, Science and Resource Management • Bill Swift Chief of Interpretation • Cam Hugie Chief of Maintenance • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 58 Snake River Management Plan I I References American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan. 1984. Prepared by: Rocky Mountain/Southwest • Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 105 pp. • Anderson, P.G. 1994. Conifer Forest Dynamics in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah. • Baptiste, M.E. 1995. 1995 monitoring of amphibians at Grand Teton National Park. Un­ • published report on file in the Division of Science and Resource Management, Grand Teton National Park, Moose, WY. • Baxter, G.T. and M.D. Stone. 1992. Amphibians and reptiles of Wyoming. Wyoming Game • and Fish Department. • Clark, T.W., A.H. Harvey, R.D. Dorn, D.L. Genter, and C. Groves, eds. 1989. Rare, sensitive, and threatened species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conser­ • vation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services. • Dahlgren, R.B., and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated • bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 188. 62 pp. • Kiefling, J. 1996. Personal communication. Fishery Biologist. Wyoming Game and Fish • Department, Jackson, WY. • Kiefling, J.W. 1978. Fisheries Technical Bulletin No. 3: Studies on the Ecology of the Snake River Cutthroat Trout. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. . • Marston, R.A. 1994. Field Guide to the Snake River Technical Tour, Grand Teton National • Park. University of Wyoming. • Koch, E.D., and C.R. Peterson. 1995. Amphibians and Reptiles of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. University of Utah Press. 188 pp. ' • Mathisen, J.E. 1968. Effects of human disturbance on nesting of bald eagles. Joumal of • Wildlife Management 31:1-6. • McGarigal, K., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs. 1991. Interactions of human and bald eagles on the Columbia River estuary. Wildlife Monographs 115, The Wildlife Society, • D.C.47 pp. • Owenby J. R., D.S. Ezell. 1992. Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1961-90. U.S. Department of Commerce. • Palmer, T. 1991. The Snake River: Window to the West, Island Press. Washington D.C. • Peterson, C. 1992. Amphibian workshop presented in Moran, Wyoming, 22 June 1992. •

Reese, J.G. 1977. Nesting success of ospreys in central Chesapeake Bay. Pages 109-113 • in J.C. Ogden, editor. Transactions of the North American Osprey Research Conference, • 10-12 February 1972, Williamsburg, Va. U.S. National Park Service Transactions and Pro­ ceedings Series 2. • • • • • References 59 Reid, M.E. 1994. Great blue heron rookerYsurvey- 1992 and 1993. In Grand Teton Na­ • tional Park. Natural resource projects 1991-1993. Division of Science, Resource Manage- • ment, and Planning, Grand Teton National Park, Moose, WY. · Rowan, D.E. 1992. Snake River Cutthroat "Trout Spawning Inventory of "Tributaries to the • Snake River (Jackson Lake to Palisades.Reservoir), Wyoming, USA. Trout Unlimited (Jack- • son Hole Chapter). . . Schroeder, G.J. 1972. Results of a 2-year investigation of the ospreys of northern Idaho. • M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 63 pp . • Department of Agriculture. 1982. Soil Conservation Service: Soil Survey of • Teton County, Wyoming, Grand Teton National Park Area. United States Department of Agriculture. Bridger-Teton National Forest. 1996. Snake River • Area Analysis. • United States Department of Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. 1996. Minimum Streamflow • Study: Preliminary Report for the Snake River below Jackson Lake Wyoming . United States Department of Interior. Denver Service Center. 1995. Visitor Experience and • Resource Protection, Implementation Plan (VERP). Arches National Park . • United States Department of Interior. Grand Canyon National Park. 1981. Colorado River • Management Plan and Annual Operating Requirements. • United States Department of Interior. Grand Teton National Park. 1976. Master Plan. United States Department of Interior. Grand Teton National Park. 1981. Snake River ·; • Managment Plan. • United States Department of Interior. Grand Teton National Park. 1988. Wildlife affected by • recreational activities at Oxbow Bend. Unpublished report on file in the Division of Science • and Resource Management, Grand Teton National Park, Moose, WY. United States Department of Interior. Grand Teton National Park. 1989. Statement for Man­ • agement. • United States Department of Interior. Grand Teton National Park and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. • Memorial Parkway. 1995. Resources Management Plan. United States Department of Interior. Grand Teton National Park. 1994. Compendium of • regulations for Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Park­ way. Designations, closures, permit requirements, and other restrictions imposed under the • discretionary authority of the Superintendent. Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations Chap­ • ter 1. Grand Teton National Park files . United States Department of Interior. Grand Teton National Park. 1995. Letter from the • Grand Teton National Park Chief Ranger to hunters selected to participate in park-wide elk • reduction program . • • • I

60 Snake River Management Plan I I I U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Mid-winter trumpeter swan survey. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lakeview, MT. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Letter to Linda Merigliano, Jackson Ranger District, I Bridger-Teton National Forest concerning endangered, threatened, and candidate species in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species act of 1973. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Mid-winter trumpeter swan survey. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lakeview, MT. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Memorandum to the Superintendent, Grand Teton National Park concerning listed, proposed, and candidate threatened or endangered (TIE) • species in accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. • Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1992. Informative brochure: The Snake River Cut­ throat Trout. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '•' ••• • • ..,) • • • • • • • • • •

Printing costs for this document funded by a donation from the • One-Fly. Foundation • • • • ..' - a ' • •• Printed on recycled paper • • •~ ,

.··~